Suggestions for improvement of the emulator

Francois Gouget fgouget at
Wed Sep 7 05:34:15 CDT 2005

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Alexandre Julliard wrote:

> Francois Gouget <fgouget at> writes:
>> Yeah, maybe a very generic 'Needs review' email to wine-devel would be
>> enough. It would also be the clue to the other Wine developpers:
>>  * that you're not going to be duplicating Alexandre's work if you
>>    review this patch
>>  * to look at the patch, dissect it to see what is wrong
>>  * if it is in your domain of competence and it looks good, post an
>>    approval message
>>  * to test the patch
>>  * and help its author get it accepted
> That should really be the default behavior, all patches need review;
> there's no reason to wait until I have looked at a patch to look at
> it. If you see a patch in an area that you know anything about, please
> review it, don't wait to see my reaction first.

Agreed. That's how it should work in an ideal world.

The problem is that when reading wine-patches it is easy to look at a 
patch and think "I don't really know anything about this, I'll let 
someone more knowledgeable look into it" (and really reviewing patches 
takes time). Patches that get dropped deserve more effort, if only 
because by then we know noone else came to a definitive conclusion on 
them. Yet most of the patches that get dropped don't get a comment from 
other Wine developpers either and part of the reason is that these 
patches are difficult to identify.

Of course clearly identifying dropped patches could also encourage 
developpers to only review those patches and ignore wine-patches which 
would be bad. It's all a tradeoff. I'm willing to accept that we 
currently have the best tradeoff possible.

    Francois Gouget         fgouget at
      You can have my guns when you pry them from my kids cold, dead hands.

More information about the wine-devel mailing list