Hi Vincent,

You raise some very good points.

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 2:53 AM, Vincent Povirk wrote:

>I think I've seen patches stay in the "New" state in the following cases:
> * He's convinced you do not have the ability to write a patch he would 
> accept. (There's a common pattern where people will take feedback and 
>attempt to revise their patch to account for it, but not really understand the 
>feedback or how to apply it. The only way to get an acceptable 
>patch in this situation would be to do the work for the submitter.)
> * He's convinced you're taking a completely wrong approach. (And generally 
> someone has explained this in reply to a previous revision of that 
>patch.)

Wouldn't these two points simply earn a 'Rejected' status and/or some kind of 
comment on the wine-devel list?

> * He thinks there's a good chance you'll revise the patch without his 
> intervention, and is waiting to see if that happens.

This is good, but only if an error is obvious or more research yields a better 
means of doing the proposed action.  But again, a 'Revision needed' status 
would help clarify the situation in this case.

> * The patch is difficult to review, and he's putting it off.

There are some statuses (e.g. 'needs splitting) to counteract this.  But 
patches are/can be difficult to review.  Again, a status such as 'Not yet 
reviewed' would help.

> * He's travelling and does not have access to a machine that can successfully 
> run the Wine test suite, and he thinks the patch might break the
>tests.
A 'Not yet reviewed' status or similar would probably be best.

Reply via email to