Suggestions for improvement of the emulator
meissner at suse.de
Tue Sep 6 07:06:11 CDT 2005
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:58:03PM +1000, Robert Lunnon wrote:
> I must disagree, the LOTM (Lord Of The Manor) governance model may work for
> an small outfit but wine has already outgrown it. I have two or three
> withheld patches which are absolute show stoppers for running wine under
> Solaris. They are withheld despite the fact they work because they were
> refused, yet every second week I am forced to work around some portability
> problem introduced by someone else - not exactly ISO9001 quality assurance.
> This causes problems for both me and the wine project because:
> 1. wine is NOT as portable as it should be.
> 2. I am forced to become the LOTM for wine under Solaris since I am currently
> the only source (I know of) for Solaris wine.
> There must have been half a dozen times where I have decided to abandon the
> wine project due to its governance model, only to be encouraged back to it by
> my customers. These days I submit my patches to comply with the LGPL, and if
> they go in all well and good, if not I no longer care... Is this how
> developers should be thinking about wine ?
> It's also important to remember that many developers that contribute
> (Including myself) are volunteers, volunteers are hard to come by, but really
> easy to get rid of. You need a governance model that is not only fair and
> even handed with people, but is SEEN TO BE fair and even handed. This model
> is not that.
Do you mailinglist posting URLs for the refusals?
You should push your patches more often and request feedback if they are
rejected. Like we all do for our patches.
Portability problems need to be pointed out by more people and fixed
by the contributors.
Changing the WINE development model would not help in your case.
Personally I consider the WINE project fair in its patch acceptance policies.
More information about the wine-devel