Re: Governance revisited

On Monday 25 September 2006 15:27, Steven Edwards wrote: > Which is why we want to have the ambassadors project to help new people in > to wine. ... if... the developers that are defacto maintainers of > a certain section of code will respond to patches as they seem them... > the experts in that ar

Governance revisited

-- Forwarded message --From: Steven Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: Sep 25, 2006 1:27 AM Subject: Re: Governance revisitedTo: Troy Rollo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>On 9/25/06, Troy Rollo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The present system turns people off even before you've had time to learnwh

Re: Governance revisited

On Monday 25 September 2006 13:16, Dimi Paun wrote: > On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 12:36 +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > > Everyone who complaints about "problems" with patch acceptance policy > > seem to claim that, but my impression is that complaints are going > > from technically incompetent people,

Re: Governance revisited

On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 12:36 +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > Everyone who complaints about "problems" with patch acceptance policy > seem to claim that, but my impression is that complaints are going > from technically incompetent people, who just "feels" that the process > can be improved, but can

Re: Please create wine-msxml and wine-setupapi components in bugzilla

James Hawkins wrote: > On 9/23/06, Tony Lambregts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> I will add these categories to bugzilla as soon as I can but >> unfortunatly bugzilla and the AppDB and the main site are down since at >> least 9:00 AM MST >> > > Can you also add an 'installer' keyword? This wo

Re: Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

On Saturday 23 September 2006 19:24, Kai Blin wrote: > On WineConf, we decided against this. That would still slow down the > overall patch submission speed. Consider you have a patch that's just fine, > but before you sent that, I sent in ten patches with C++ style comments. > Alexandre would now

Re: Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

On Saturday 23 September 2006 11:39, Steven Edwards wrote: > As it stands right now the only reason technically > good patches have been rejected is due to concerns over reverse engineering > in another project. I don't see the difference between rejection and "I won't put this in yet because I

Re: Please create wine-msxml and wine-setupapi components in bugzilla

Tony Lambregts wrote: > Louis Lenders wrote: >>> I propose adding categories for msxml and setupapi now. >>> Here are bugzilla queries that find quite a few bugs that >>> are candidates for moving into those categories: >>> >>> >> Good idea. In case someone is going to add these catagories, please

Re: Please create wine-msxml and wine-setupapi components in bugzilla

On 9/23/06, Tony Lambregts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will add these categories to bugzilla as soon as I can but unfortunatly bugzilla and the AppDB and the main site are down since at least 9:00 AM MST Can you also add an 'installer' keyword? This would be helpful in keeping track of all

Re: Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

Robert Lunnon wrote: 2. Adapt the patch acceptance process to create a right of appeal where a patch can be proven to be within the Patch Acceptance policy. Appeal should be independent of and binding on Alexandre - this eliminates one-to-one arguments about patch acceptability while still prov

Re: Governance revisited

Jim White wrote: The whole "quality" and "hack" language is a red herring. To see that it is selective and subjective, just look at the code, try xrender.c for example. The difference is that presumably the person who submitted that code demonstrated that they understood the problem that t

Re: my dsound/winealsa hacks

James Courtier-Dutton wrote: As Direct Sound does not know anything about periods, I don't really know how you will be able to get it to work well with ALSA. I expect that some sort of double buffer will be required. Does Direct Sound have a concept of position of the ADC, and also a concept of

Re: AW: Call for Installer Bugs...

Roland Kaeser wrote: Hello There are Bugs in Corel Draw: CorelDRAW 10: Bug #5801 I know that CorelDRAW 11 installation fails at start but have not a version so cannot provide a bug report. CorelDRAW 12 is already reported Office 2003 installation

some wineconference pictures

Hi, Some Wine conference pictures from David and myself: http://gallery.kuschelt.net/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=100617 Ciao, Marcus

RE: Governance revisited

Jim White wrote: > CodeWeavers Wine version is full of patches that Alexandre won't accept > for WineHQ. Obvious proof that the Alexandre's policy isn't the only > way to make a Wine that people value. In fact it proves that the > WineHQ's patch process is not good enough to make Wine that people

Re: RFC: wine ASIO driver available for testing

Jim White wrote: Eric Pouech wrote: I'm afraid submission (or integration in the Wine tree) will be problematic ASIO interface is copyrighted, and you need to sign an agreement to Steinberg for using the API. Are you sure about that? I see other GPL software using ASIO, like SndOBJ:

Re: LOSTWAGES: WWN 292 & 320 updates

On 23/09/06, Mirek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also changed what benchmarks I had running at this years WineConf > 3DMark2000, 3DMark2001SE and 3DMark2003... I have 3DMark2006 running > and its beautiful, well beauty is in the eye of the beholder > All of the test run in all three of the bench

AW: Call for Installer Bugs...

HelloThere are Bugs in Corel Draw:CorelDRAW 10: Bug #5801I know that CorelDRAW 11 installation fails at start but have not a version so cannot provide a bug report.CorelDRAW 12 is already reportedOffice 2003 installation fails on 0.9.21SimCity 4 needs special interaction to get it running: http://w

Re: Whither msxml?

Hi our msxml idl flles are not in sync with psdk idl files. especially it still doesnot have SAX defines. And XML DSO definitions. (this is a bit compilicated). As msxml.idl includes xmldso.idl in PSDK headers. And msxml2.idl defines them in the idl file itself. As there are some incompatibilitie

RE: Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

Robert Lunnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On community, the wine project doesn't represent a community in the sense > that > Wine has an altruistic purpose to provide value to that community - It > doesn't do that because the wine developer base doesn't measure important to > Wine users and se

Re: my dsound/winealsa hacks

Tomas Carnecky wrote: James Courtier-Dutton wrote: I have place some documentation on the ALSA wiki site: https://bugtrack.alsa-project.org/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=ALSAresampler It tries to explain the constraints that the current ALSA resampler works under. You might like to read it as I think

Re: Call for Installer Bugs...

Dan Kegel wrote: (see http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-msi&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=download&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED for list) I have an installer bug in the 'zilla, I'd like to see whether it's on your l

Re: Governance revisited

On Saturday 23 September 2006 18:10, Hiji wrote: > I think Bob, Jim and co. were very diplomatic in their recommendations, and > I firmly believe that they symbolize the opinions of a much larger group of > people. I don't think they've overstepped their boundaries at all, have > "complained" or r

Re: Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

From: Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Saturday 23 September 2006 10:32, Scott Ritchie wrote: > Frankly, all we really need is for Alexandre to write a 10-second reply > to wine-devel for each patch he rejects. On WineConf, we decided against this. That would still slow down the overall patch s

Re: Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

Scott Ritchie wrote: On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 11:24 +0200, Kai Blin wrote: On Saturday 23 September 2006 10:32, Scott Ritchie wrote: Frankly, all we really need is for Alexandre to write a 10-second reply to wine-devel for each patch he rejects. On WineConf, we decided against this

Re: my dsound/winealsa hacks

Am Samstag 23 September 2006 10:57 schrieb Tomas Carnecky: > .. another small update, now tries to create the buffer size as close as > possible to what the app requested. > The whole patch is available at the same URL, I also created a patch of > only ./dlls/winmm/winealsa/audio.c to make it easie

Re: Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

Andreas Mohr wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:52:45PM -0600, Vitaliy Margolen wrote: >> Dr J A Gow wrote: >>> How to capture these 'lost' contributions is a difficult issue. Maybe a >>> centralized repository for patches could be maintained separate from the >>> main >>> Wine tree and

Re: ALSA implementation

James Courtier-Dutton wrote: The technically best solution is for the application to do the resampling before passing it to the sound card, so any effort to do it in the sound drivers is always going to be sub-optimal, with sound quality suffering. I still fail to see how that's the case for Wi

Server instability warning

Hi Folks, The server crashed early yesterday evening, and again sometime over the night. It's a new server - and in fact, I think it's the new 'new' server - seems like it always takes a while to get a server stabilized). Jeremy Newman is coming back from England today, and I prefer to leave the

Re: Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

Vitaliy Margolen wrote: The next question is how long does someone wait till resorting to Bugzilla. Depending on the criteria it could generate a fair bit of -several days :) As in if some one wants to fix something, they should either provide a test (best choice) or open bug and describ

Re: Please create wine-msxml and wine-setupapi components in bugzilla

Louis Lenders wrote: >> I propose adding categories for msxml and setupapi now. >> Here are bugzilla queries that find quite a few bugs that >> are candidates for moving into those categories: >> >> > > Good idea. In case someone is going to add these catagories, please also add > catagories for c

Re: Governance revisited

"Hiji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message From: Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: wine-devel@winehq.org; Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:42:36 PM Subject: Re: Governance revisited The current process is

Re: Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

> From: Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Saturday 23 September 2006 10:32, Scott Ritchie wrote: > > Frankly, all we really need is for Alexandre to write a 10-second > > reply to wine-devel for each patch he rejects. > > On WineConf, we decided against this. That would still slow > down the