Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

[Tony Lambregts]

Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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
> fully applied."

As alternative to bugzilla we have this section in the wiki.

http://wiki.winehq.org/InterestingPatches

This has several hac^H^H^Hpatches that I found uesfull and have used
over time. I particularly like the "Mouse Hack" patch
http://wiki.winehq.org/PatchMouseHack

The thing is that if a patch is useful it will have a life of its own
and I am glad that I have an easy way of getting to them when I want to
try them.
> 
> 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.).
> 
Yes please..


--

Tony Lambregts