Wine developer frustration (was Re: ntdll: Improve stub of NtQueryEaFile.)

[André Hentschel]

Am 16.06.2015 um 21:56 schrieb Josh DuBois:
> On 6/16/15 2:51 PM, Theodore Dubois wrote:
>>
>> May I suggest you eliminate those hacks by merging them into the Wine codebase?
> Most of the hacks would not be accepted into wine - some are simply bad implementations of needed behavior, others are totally bizzare things which are application-specific and should not be included in the main source tree.  Over time, the hope (and this does really tend to happen) is that proper, good, quality implementations of the hacks get written and are merged upstream.
> 
>> This may sound unthinkable, but I would also suggest going further and releasing the source code for the hacks.
> 
> We always, always release full source when we release a version of CrossOver.   Not only for wine, but for other open-source components we use.  It is available here:
> 
> https://www.codeweavers.com/products/faq/source/
> 
> If we ever fail to release source when we cut a version of CrossOver, that's a bug and a problem.  Tell us about it and we will fix it (it very rarely happens, our release process is pretty smooth).    We are obligated by the LGPL to release these sources, so anyone who wants to make a request always can, but they are also always available for download on our website, just like CrossOver itself.
> 

Fun fact: Such a source distribution of CrossOver was leading to a North Korean Wine:
https://www.winehq.org/wwn/383#Examining%20Crosswin

While it seems Theodore didn't do his homework and didn't know about that source distribution, one of his point remains:
it's not a database, git, or something easily readable, just a blob

Oh man, i didn't plan to jump into that "flamewar"...

But while I’m at it, Jeremy, the only thing about CW that sometimes bugs me, is that CW devs often send their patches without any description.
(Maybe that was also what Theodore means?)
Maybe i keep finding only the "bad" ones, but it's always with patches that catch my interest for some reason, and then, no info.
And that looks a bit like "AJ already knows what this is about and what it is going to fix, no need to mention it".
And of course i'm far from perfect, so maybe i just picked the "bad" ones and never had a look at the "good" ones, and of course i also don't
always provide a good description... I just wanted to throw in the only thing that bugs me about CW, don't be offended :)

Aside from that, i think CW is totally awesome to have for Wine.

So my 2c about the wine-staging thing: I think we should integrate them somehow back to winehq.
Don't get me wrong, don't just merge the patches :D
I mean the whole idea should not be pushed away. Hello! They want to (and do) "mentor" people to get things upstream! Awesome!
So what do I mean with integration? Give them some kind of "Approved" stamp, instead of an "Evil" stamp.
Simply don't push them out of bugzilla, but sure, we also don't want a flood of new bugs which might not be correctly reported by users...
Simply give them a way too handle/keep track/manage/ripe their patchsets at winehq in a way everyone is happy with,
maybe accepting git pull request is also a good idea!?
Simply give them a place at winehq...
And Staging guys, help people with patches on wine-devel, discuss them on #winehackers, and so on

I think someone said we should introduce Signed-Off, where is that idea going? I think it sounds like a good idea...