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.
