Sebastian Lackner sebastian@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@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...