https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35630
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@baikal.ru --- (In reply to Bruno Jesus from comment #6)
(In reply to Austin English from comment #4)
Looks like that patch didn't make it in. Would you mind rebasing and resending now that 1.8 is released? Thanks.
The patch was silently ignored, I don't think it makes any sense to resend.
The patch was sent before wineconf 2015, I'm sure that resending it now will have a different impact ;-)
Frankly, I don't see much difference in patch acceptance practices, they got even worse with inventing the sign-off qualification. The original idea for sign-off was to set the rules for sending patches created by somebody else, making the sender take the responsibility (by signing off the patch) for any regressions and any other bad things caused by the patch. Current (utterly perverted IMO) situation made the patch acceptance policy even worse than it was before, basically now you have to wait for some person who does not necessarily knows the code best (or even better than the sender), just he/she decided to make himself a "maintainer". Personally I even saw the situations when the patch author sends patches for the code originally written himself but nonetheless he must wait for an approvement (sign-off) from unrelated person who just happened to assign himself to be a "maintainer". Another thing worrying me is the "maintainers" origin. The matter of the fact is that everyone outside of codeweavers relies on sign-offs from CW people, while patches from @codeweavers.com senders usually get in without any delay, or even without waiting even for finishing a testbot run. Basically you can't get your patch accepted without a sign-off from a @CW person, and if someone else even dare to sign-off your patch (even a test or a really trivial change), your patch most likely won't be accepted without a sign-off with trailing @CW.com.