Possibility of adding a new patch status

[Hugh McMaster]

Hi Vincent,

You raise some very good points.

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 2:53 AM, Vincent Povirk wrote:

>I think I've seen patches stay in the "New" state in the following cases:
> * He's convinced you do not have the ability to write a patch he would accept. (There's a common pattern where people will take feedback and 
>attempt to revise their patch to account for it, but not really understand the feedback or how to apply it. The only way to get an acceptable 
>patch in this situation would be to do the work for the submitter.)
> * He's convinced you're taking a completely wrong approach. (And generally someone has explained this in reply to a previous revision of that 
>patch.)

Wouldn't these two points simply earn a 'Rejected' status and/or some kind of comment on the wine-devel list?

> * He thinks there's a good chance you'll revise the patch without his intervention, and is waiting to see if that happens.

This is good, but only if an error is obvious or more research yields a better means of doing the proposed action.  But again, a 'Revision needed' status would help clarify the situation in this case.

> * The patch is difficult to review, and he's putting it off.

There are some statuses (e.g. 'needs splitting) to counteract this.  But patches are/can be difficult to review.  Again, a status such as 'Not yet reviewed' would help.

> * He's travelling and does not have access to a machine that can successfully run the Wine test suite, and he thinks the patch might break the
>tests.
A 'Not yet reviewed' status or similar would probably be best.