Governance revisited (Wineconf report)
andi at rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de
Thu Sep 21 01:59:15 CDT 2006
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:52:45PM -0600, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> Dr J A Gow wrote:
> > How to capture these 'lost' contributions is a difficult issue. Maybe a
> > centralized repository for patches could be maintained separate from the main
> > Wine tree and with a very loose method of acceptance (maybe just ensure that it
> > is clearly indicated what the patch is for and what version it can be applied
> > to). This way it would be very easy for a contributor to place a patch somewhere
> > where it is easily accessed by the community. A developer with more time who is
> > interested in it may pick it up and clean it up for inclusion in the tree, but
> > at least the patch is available for others to use, saving re-invention of the wheel.
> Why reinvent the wheel? If such people can spend their time chasing down the problem
> and developing a fix for it, they sure can open a bug in bugzilla, describe theproblem
> and attach a patch they made. How more simple can it be?
> No patches lost, no extra places to look for. And all the information describing the
> problem. Everything in one place.
And exactly this information should probably be stated in the wine-patches
subscription welcome mail.
"If for some reason the Wine patches you submit fail to get applied,
then we'd appreciate you taking the effort of submitting your current patch
as a new item at bugzilla to help us track your work properly until it's
Or, for improved visibility, even state this in the footer of every wine-patches mail
sent (probably bad idea, though).
Oh, and a DNS alias (or preferrably forwarder) bugzilla.winehq.org might be
useful (after all it's quite common to have that site name, see e.g.
bugzilla.kernel.org or bugzilla.mozilla.org etc.).
GNU/Linux. It's not the software that's free, it's you.
More information about the wine-devel