wine-devel / wine-patches (Was: Re: [1/4] webservices: Unlock critical section before returning.)

[Sebastian Lackner]

On 09.03.2017 13:34, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 10:53 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>> On 9 March 2017 at 09:24, Alexandre Julliard <julliard at winehq.org> wrote:
>>> Sorry about that. Having replies go to the patches list would make
>>> things easier for me, but I expect others prefer to keep wine-patches
>>> only for patches. OTOH we already have signoffs in there...
>>>
>> I suspect that at least for more casual contributors it would make
>> more sense to just have a single mailing list for Wine development. In
>> theory everyone uses git send-email and all patches have the [PATCH]
>> prefix, which would make it easy to filter them.
> Afair some of the active Wine developers filter both lists to one
> folder anyway. I did that in the beginning too but with the move to git
> and the increased amount of patches I have split them up.
> But I'm not opposed to a merger as I can adjust my filters.
> 
> With the addition of the Signed-off-by tag one reason to have a split
> wine-devel / wine-patches disappeared:
> Only finished patches should have gone to wine-patches while proof of
> concept / RFC style patches should have gone to wine-devel. This can be
> achieved now by just leaving off the Signed-off-by and maybe a "Not
> ready yet so no Signed-off-by".
> 
> Anyway this would make a nice topic for the next WineConf ;)
> 
> bye
> 	michael
> 
> 

I also wouldn't mind if both mailing lists are merged, but I'm not
really sure if / why it is necessary in this case. A quick check
confirms that In-Reply-To / References header fields are preserved
accross mailing lists. Wouldn't it be sufficient to improve the patch
scripts to make sure rejects or other comments aren't missed?

Best regards,
Sebastian