New kernel development guide might be good model for Wine...

[James Hawkins]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Markus Hitter <mah at jump-ing.de> wrote:
>
> Am 18.08.2008 um 19:53 schrieb James Hawkins:
>
>> Why can't a developer review his own patch? If your patch is not
>> committed, the first thing you should do is look the patch over for obvious
>> mistakes.
>
> Obviously, some people here are used to receive more random diffs instead of
> carefully crafted patches. If there are obvious (to me) mistakes in a patch,
> I wouldn't even consider sending it.
>

Of course you wouldn't, but then when the patch doesn't get committed,
you should look back at it and really think outside the box about what
could possibly be wrong with the patch.  I'm pretty sure there are
very few developers, if any, who send in a patch knowing it's wrong
and expect it to get committed.

>> then you can ask on wine-devel or IRC why your patch was rejected.
>
>
> ... or not even noticed. Thanks for the explanations, I'll take home "Wine
> developers don't care to be asked more than once". Thanks to Michael for
> reviewing my lines.
>

You assume it wasn't noticed.  I can guarantee that's not the case.
Give Alexandre a bit more credit than that.  I'm not really sure what
you're trying to get at with "developers don't like to be asked more
than once" or where you even got that.  It is the responsibility of no
one else but yourself to make sure a patch gets committed.  If you
don't want to make take those extra steps to make that happen, don't
complain to us that the process is at fault.  We all have patches that
seem to disappear in the cracks, but then we make that extra effort
and either figure out what is wrong with it on our own, or ask the
community or Alexandre what the problem is.

-- 
James Hawkins