appdb developers please read
twickline at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 11:41:53 CDT 2005
On 9/8/05, Ivan Leo Puoti <ivanleo at gmail.com> wrote:
> We don't need that, it's not much better than what we've got and isn't
> worth the effort, what is needed is something that Alexandre can use.
> New patches are "New", committed patched are "committed" and rejected
> patches are marked as "rejected, reason:" so people can know what is and
> isn't committed and why as soon as Alexandre makes that decision.
All of this comes down to one simple thing... "Communication Overhead"
And the way I see it AJ would soon go from hacking and committing patches to
explaining why every dropped patch was dropped. So the question at the
end of the day
comes down to this, do we want AJ working on hacking/committing or
sending reasons why patches dont get applied?
There are only 24 hours in a day and I believe the current system is
the most productive.
1) send a patch
2) wait five days for a commit
3) re-submit after five days has passed
4) if the patch still isn't committed after two days ask why.
This gives everyone who is interested a week to review/test the patch
More information about the wine-devel