[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    Re: Possibility of adding a new patch status
From:       Vincent Povirk <madewokherd () gmail ! com>
Date:       2013-07-31 14:19:19
Message-ID: CAG_NDKoGZno1KJe-vu=-3ptjx3uqQ1s-+07kM6Z4MxHDLq6DRQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> Wouldn't these two points simply earn a 'Rejected' status and/or some kind of \
> comment on the wine-devel list?

Applying a "Rejected" status would require looking at the patch.

But it could be nice to have a status that means "I will not even read
a patch from this person to do this specific thing without substantial
changes that are not being made."

> > * He thinks there's a good chance you'll revise the patch without his \
> > intervention, and is waiting to see if that happens.
> 
> This is good, but only if an error is obvious or more research yields a better \
> means of doing the proposed action.  But again, a 'Revision needed' status would \
> help clarify the situation in this case.

But maybe revision isn't needed. Determining that would require
reviewing the patch.

> > * The patch is difficult to review, and he's putting it off.
> 
> There are some statuses (e.g. 'needs splitting) to counteract this.  But patches \
> are/can be difficult to review.  Again, a status such as 'Not yet reviewed' would \
> help. 
> > * He's travelling and does not have access to a machine that can successfully run \
> > the Wine test suite, and he thinks the patch might break the tests.
> A 'Not yet reviewed' status or similar would probably be best.

But "Not yet reviewed" is what "New" is supposed to be. The problem is
there are situations where patches are never reviewed and no one is
told why.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]