Ge van Geldorp wrote:
My objective is to improve Wine by maximizing the number of patches of
acceptable quality. In my opinion, this can be done by:
1) assuring no patches get lost
2) assuring an author gets informed about why his patch is not acceptable in
its current form so he can improve it.
That sounds good, but it's not reasonable to put the responsibility on
Alexandre, as he has enough work already.
From your other mail:
> mention the time it costs the author. Shouldn't we be looking at the
> productivity of everyone involved in Wine development and not just at
> Alexandres productivity (although I acknowledge his special
position)? > I'm a bit surprised (and, to be honest, also a little bit
annoyed)
> about the low value you seem to place on the time contributed by the
> developers.
With a single maintainer system, costs to patch submitters and authors
are much less crucial to a working system than costs to the single
maintainer. Spreading the workload, so the many do more work, is the
only way to improve the system.
We agree that encouraging more reviewers is a good thing, so how about
focusing on ways to get more people to review patches?
Mike
