http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55775 --- Comment #41 from Zeb Figura <z.figura12@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #39)
(In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #38)
Therefore I'd appreciate leaving off the passive-aggressive comments.
Which part is passive aggressive and should be left off?
I apologize, I seem to have misread the intent behind your message. I should have been more gracious.
As I've told you before, Wine lags behind DXVK because we have had at most one developer working on Direct3D, often less than full time, for the past several years.
Thanks for clarifying d3d lags due to limited resources. I'm trying to fix the lags.
Forgive me if my guess that limited resource allocation may due to business strategy is considered offensive to you. It seems a legitimate decision to be made given potential steam partnerships and resource allocations there.
No, it's broadly true; the phrasing seemed more accusatory (i.e. that lagging behind is intentional, rather than a consequence of CW's choices to prioritize other work) but I gather this was unintentional.
Perhaps I misunderstood your reply that "priorities are difficult" as these d3d bugs are considered lower priority.
To be clear, when I say they are lower priority I don't mean that they are *low* priority. I would rate shared resources as the #2 priority, after "finish Damavand", and I'm not even sure that's right. Also to clarify, that's just priorities as in "what I personally work on". Review of someone else's patches is always the highest priority. I know it doesn't seem that way, and I apologize; I really don't want to be as slow with review as I am.
I'm doing what I'm able to fix/workaround bugs as a newcomer/outsider. Perhaps not auto rejecting other's fixes/workarounds may satisfy some level of what may be considered fixes especially when otherwise harmless and provide clarity.
I'm sorry you feel that your fixes are being automatically rejected; that's not at all my intent, and, to be overly honest, I'm specifically hesitant to reject anything from a new contributor for fear of driving them off. As you point out, we desperately need new contributors. The only patch I've considered rejecting is 11398, because (1) it doesn't actually encourage anyone to fix the bug properly; in fact it reduces the incentive; (2) it's rather indirect for a workaround, compared to other workarounds we have in d3d; (3) it's not clear to me it's going to be that hard. But I also see the point of fixing a larger class of applications now, and it's simple enough too, so it's hard to decide. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.