2008/8/19 Markus Hitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Am 19.08.2008 um 00:41 schrieb James Hawkins: > >> when the patch doesn't get committed, you should look back at it >> and really think >> outside the box about what could possibly be wrong with the patch. > > Essentially, you ask to change code on unfounded guesses (I did the > best to my knowledge in the first place already) and to commit into a > black hole until some unknown, not communicating person is satisfied > to her/his taste.
I agree to a point. There are certain things you can check (e.g. do the tests pass on Wine) that usually block a patch. Other things it can be difficult to spot. Especially if you are not used to the coding conventions, or Windows idiosyncracies. >> You assume it wasn't noticed. I can guarantee that's not the case. > > So, what did the reviewing person then? Sitting there smiling "Heh, > look, he could have done better, but, ha-ha, I won't tell him"? I > hope this wasn't the case. This is why it is important to keep track of the patches you have sent. >> Give Alexandre a bit more credit than that. > > I'm fine with Alexandre personally but not so sure about Wine's > current patch receiving process. > > That said I'm perfectly fine if Wine people consider this process as > being effective. There's no law enforcing Wine to accept what I've sent. I think Alexandre does a fantastic job. >> [...] or ask the community or Alexandre what the problem is. > > Correct. Communication is a plus. Which is why it is important to ask why your patches have not been committed. Whenever I have asked, I have got a good response. I have found that this is easier to do on the IRC, but like with everything it requires time and commitment. - Reece
