Re: [1/4] webservices: Unlock critical section before returning.
Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> writes:
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> ---
Do I have to send feedback to the patches list to make sure it is not missed? ;)
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... -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On 9 March 2017 at 09:24, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)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.
On 03/09/2017 10:53 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 9 March 2017 at 09:24, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)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
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(a)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
Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> writes:
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(a)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?
Of course, a smarter patch tracker would be a better solution, but that's Real Work ;-) My suggestion was actually that only rejects would go to wine-patches, with other discussions still going to wine-devel. But of course a rejection often turns into a discussion, so merging the lists may be better. Let's put that on the WineConf agenda... -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On Mar 9, 2017, at 3:53 AM, Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 March 2017 at 09:24, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)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.
For what it's worth, personally I prefer keeping them separate. The two kinds of emails warrant different responses/treatment.
In theory everyone uses git send-email and all patches have the [PATCH] prefix, which would make it easy to filter them.
A quick review of wine-patches shows that (the [PATCH] prefix part) to not be the case. -Ken
participants (5)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Henri Verbeet -
Ken Thomases -
Michael Stefaniuc -
Sebastian Lackner