Governance revisited (Wineconf report)
scott at open-vote.org
Sat Sep 23 04:49:11 CDT 2006
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 11:24 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> On Saturday 23 September 2006 10:32, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> > Frankly, all we really need is for Alexandre to write a 10-second reply
> > to wine-devel for each patch he rejects.
> On WineConf, we decided against this. That would still slow down the overall
> patch submission speed. Consider you have a patch that's just fine, but
> before you sent that, I sent in ten patches with C++ style comments.
> Alexandre would now have to reply to ten patches with "No C++ style comments"
> before processing your patch. Everybody reading wine-patches could point out
> what was wrong with my patches.
> Now, we agreed to try something different, two things actually. The first
> thing is the "ambassador" thing Steve and a couple of other people mentioned
> before. New contributors would be contacted by someone who would explain the
> way wine works to them. Secondly, we wanted to make a standard practice of
> what Mike's been doing for MSI patches. A developer proficient in a certain
> area of wine will reply to all the patches for his area, do a review and also
> makes sure they don't disappear into the void.
Well, as long as SOMEONE writes the 10-second reply, I suppose it
doesn't matter. But until we appoint the equivalent of Mike and MSI for
every part of Wine, Alexandre ends up being the default person to do it.
More information about the wine-devel