Marcus Meissner wrote:
> Also Alexandre to some parts comments on bad patches these days. :)
If by 'bad patches' you mean patches in the rejected state that's not
the subject of this thread.
--
Dmitry.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 04:52:42PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Jeff Latimer wrote:
>
> > I agree a lot of developers would benefit from feedback, however that
> > does not appear to be the Wine way of doing business. Maybe a halfway
> > measure would be to automatically notify the developer
Jeff Latimer wrote:
> I agree a lot of developers would benefit from feedback, however that
> does not appear to be the Wine way of doing business. Maybe a halfway
> measure would be to automatically notify the developer that their patch
> has been marked as pending and then the developer can as
On 09/04/12 16:50, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> It should be in the best ineterests of the project to provide as much
> feedback as possible, and should improve not only amount of accepted
> code (by encouraging developers provide more
> comments/explanations/tests/etc. and more actively discuss possi
Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> I think the general feeling is that Pending should be renamed to "Decision
> pending" and that more feedback is needed at least in the form of "this is
> the wrong approach" or "this may be the right approach, explain yourself
> better". But the general feeling is that "
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > WM_SHOWWINDOW at the start and at the end of every message sequence
> > means that ShowWindow() should be used to hide and show the window
> > during SetParent call processing.
>
> That's the sort of explanation you should have included in your
> patch, instead of e
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Michael Stefaniuc writes:
>
> >> The pending state is feedback. It means that the patch is not clearly
> > yes, but the worst possible feedback.
> >
> > New people assume you or the area maintainer need to still make up their
> > mind
Michael Stefaniuc writes:
>> The pending state is feedback. It means that the patch is not clearly
> yes, but the worst possible feedback.
>
> New people assume you or the area maintainer need to still make up their
> mind on the patch but that's not the case, it is a done deal.
Not necessarily.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > WM_SHOWWINDOW at the start and at the end of every message sequence
> > means that ShowWindow() should be used to hide and show the window
> > during SetParent call processing.
>
> That's the sort of explanation you should have included in your
> patch, instead of e
Alexandre,
On 03/28/2012 10:17 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
>
>> It's very confusing, and absolutely not clear what is required from the
>> patch submitter, especially since *there is no any feedback on the patch*.
>> 'Rejected' at least requies some sort of feedback,
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> I'm sorry, but that's not a feedback, and casual contributors may even
> not be aware of that patch tracking page. And as I mentioned if the patch
> already contains the tests it's not really obvious what should be added
> in addition. In the light of recent discussions
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> The pending state is feedback. It means that the patch is not clearly
> correct, but that it's complicated to articulate exactly why. Like it
> says, you should try to make it more convincing, either by simplifying
> the patch, or writing a test case.
I'm sorry, but t
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> It's very confusing, and absolutely not clear what is required from the
> patch submitter, especially since *there is no any feedback on the patch*.
> 'Rejected' at least requies some sort of feedback, while 'Pending' doesn't.
> To me 'Pending' looks like a silent case
Hello,
http://source.winehq.org/patches has the following legend for the Pending
patch status:
Pending
* The patch is not obviously correct at first glance. Making a more
convincing argument, preferably in the form of a test case, may help.
* Waiting for feedback from the main developer in that
14 matches
Mail list logo
