Patchwork (was Re: Governance revisited)
Ge van Geldorp
ge at gse.nl
Thu Sep 28 05:41:17 CDT 2006
> From: Mike McCormack [mailto:mike at codeweavers.com]
> That sounds good, but it's not reasonable to put the
> responsibility on Alexandre, as he has enough work already.
Unless you can read Alexandres mind, he's really the only one who can tell
what he didn't like about a certain patch. Hopefully he'll get help from
others to weed out obviously incorrect patches, but in the end it's his
> With a single maintainer system, costs to patch submitters
> and authors are much less crucial to a working system than
> costs to the single maintainer.
Which is why I made the remark about Alexandres special position. It doesn't
mean (at least I hope it doesn't mean) that costs to authors are not
important at all.
> We agree that encouraging more reviewers is a good thing, so
> how about focusing on ways to get more people to review patches?
One doesn't preclude the other. I indeed agree it would be good to get more
people to review patches, but I also think that's not a complete solution.
The results of the review (either by peers, subsystem maintainers or
Alexandre) needs to be communicated back to the author. Focusing solely on
review doesn't solve the problem of patches getting lost either.
Ge van Geldorp.
More information about the wine-devel