Suggestions for improvement of the emulator

[Robert Shearman]

Robert Lunnon wrote:

>On Wednesday 07 September 2005 19:35, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>  
>
>>Francois Gouget <fgouget at free.fr> 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.
>>    
>>
>
>There is a problem here, you are presupposing the submitter is interested in 
>reviewing the patch to the projects specification. This subverts the value of 
>collective development if the submitter is unwilling then you lose the value 
>of the improvement AND potentially the developer.
>  
>

If the developer isn't willing to get the patch up to a high enough 
level of quality, then they aren't going to get their patch in unless 
someone else takes over their patch. I don't see how anything is going 
to change that.

>It would be better to commit it to a branch to open it up to all to consider.
>  
>

There isn't really much of a difference between having a branch and 
having a patch in the wine-patches archives. Having it in a branch may 
in fact be detrimental as it makes it easier to not do the work to get 
it committed to the main tree. You could end up with 5 different 
branches, all with different goals and none of the developers being 
bothered to merge anything into the main tree so all of the features can 
be used together.

-- 
Rob Shearman