On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yeah, maybe a very generic 'Needs review' email to wine-devel would be
enough. It would also be the clue to the other Wine developpers:
* that you're not going to be duplicating Alexandre's work if you
review this patch
* to look at the patch, dissect it to see what is wrong
* if it is in your domain of competence and it looks good, post an
approval message
* to test the patch
* and help its author get it accepted
That should really be the default behavior, all patches need review;
there's no reason to wait until I have looked at a patch to look at
it. If you see a patch in an area that you know anything about, please
review it, don't wait to see my reaction first.
Agreed. That's how it should work in an ideal world.
The problem is that when reading wine-patches it is easy to look at a
patch and think "I don't really know anything about this, I'll let
someone more knowledgeable look into it" (and really reviewing patches
takes time). Patches that get dropped deserve more effort, if only
because by then we know noone else came to a definitive conclusion on
them. Yet most of the patches that get dropped don't get a comment from
other Wine developpers either and part of the reason is that these
patches are difficult to identify.
Of course clearly identifying dropped patches could also encourage
developpers to only review those patches and ignore wine-patches which
would be bad. It's all a tradeoff. I'm willing to accept that we
currently have the best tradeoff possible.
--
Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fgouget.free.fr/
You can have my guns when you pry them from my kids cold, dead hands.
