Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

[Jeremy White]

> maybe it is worth looking at patchwork?
> 
> -------------------
> PatchWork is a web-based patch tracking system designed to facilitate the 
> contribution and management of contributions to an open-source project.
> Patches that have been sent to a mailing list are 'caught' by the system,
> and appear on a web page. Any comments posted that reference the patch are
> appended to the patch page too. The project's maintainer can then scan
> through the list of patches, marking each with a certain state, such as 
> Accepted, Rejected or Under Review. Old patches can be sent to the archive
> or deleted.
> ---------------------
> http://ozlabs.org/~jk/projects/patchwork/
> 
> I have never used it myself though, so no idea if it does everything you want.

Hmm.  Now I'm worried; I've long thought this would be a Good Idea (TM),
and yet if you look at the 'live' project site (presumably the project
this was built for):
  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc64/

It's pretty clear that it's not getting any use - it's just a mirror
of the mailing list.

So clearly the folks on the Linux PPC 64 project didn't feel it was
worth investing much energy into.

Also, it might be interesting to compare how the Linux kernel
does things; presumably they are a successful model.

My sense was that it was all pretty ad-hoc, and as bad, or much
worse, than Wine when it came to patches going into the void.
(I'm batting .500 with patches to the kernel; one took me 2 years
and a personal plea to Alan Cox to get in, the other is still not
in, despite the sub system maintainer agreeing that it was good
[after many repeated pleas]).

Has that changed?  I presume that this same thread has come up over there -
did a consensus ever develop?  (Forgive me, but I don't follow LKML,
I'm hoping someone braver than I might know).

Cheers,

Jeremy