This year's changes to the "Submitting Patches" page

[Daniel Kamil Kozar]

Funny you should bring it up : I'm currently working on a patch to
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43270 . It's still in a
incredibly early stage (but already makes the affected application
work, which is nice) at which I wouldn't even consider making it an
official submission, but I'd still love to hear comments about it (and
have some questions myself anyway), especially seeing how I haven't
ever done stuff in Wine before. Is sending "non-official" (i.e.
without the [PATCH] prefix in the topic) patches for review to the
mailing list acceptable? I don't think I've seen it mentioned in the
wiki, since it only talks about sending "official" [PATCH]es.

Kind regards,
Daniel

On 25 July 2018 at 01:33, Zebediah Figura <z.figura12 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/07/18 09:01, Alex Henrie wrote:
>
>> - Clarify that Signed-off-by means that you think a patch is good
>> enough to go into Wine (and not that you are obligated fix any
>> regressions it may cause)
>>
>
> I know that this is a terrible time to bring this up, since Alexandre is
> on vacation, but I was just thinking about this and I have a concern I'd
> like to know how to address. I am quite clearly not the best Wine
> developer on the block, and, being aware of this, I'm not sure I
> necessarily feel comfortable saying I am *confident* that many of my
> patches—as I initially send them—are good enough to go into Wine. I
> guess the system is sort of designed this way—Alexandre, and the other
> reviewers, determine whether a patch is good enough, so it ultimately
> kind of doesn't matter whether anyone else does. But it's been stated
> explicitly—even at this last Wineconf—that the "standards" of the
> submitter have direct bearing on their Julliard Rank, and it's obviously
> in anyone's interest (especially us less proficient contributors) to
> keep a high rank. And there are patches I send where I not only can't
> guarantee I haven't made any accidental mistakes but am also generally
> unsure that I've taken the right approach. This is a concern to me since
> in my experience sending the patch as a RFC, or even trying to ask what
> the right approach is, results in a response significantly less often
> than I'd like. Not that I'm trying to accuse Alexandre or anyone else of
> being unfairly unresponsive, but my point is that a patch with my
> sign-off is more likely to get a review than one without, and of course
> in the case where my approach does seem correct it can't be committed
> without my sign-off.
>
> So, what should I do about this? Am I interpreting the meaning of a
> sign-off too restrictively? Or is it just a matter of living with the
> consequences of being a mediocre developer? Which is understandable if
> that's the case; it's just unfortunate.
>
> ἔρρωσθε,
> Zeb
>
>