On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com wrote:
You'd still be sending the patch twice to wine-patches, and by that logic, for _EVERY_ patch, not just ones that were rejected.
No. you would only have to send it again if the first one was rejected by patchwatcher. By default no ones work flow would change, just the email you are sending it to for retries saving everyones inbox on spam. If your patch was bad you would still have to do extra leg work but all of that would be done in private. If we get make test working in more places then its possible the number of first time failures to wine-patches will go down also if we can encourage people to run make test before submitting patches.
-- Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
Here's how I understand your idea, correct me if I'm wrong:
WinedevA submits a patch to wine-patches. Crashes on patchwatcher, etc. WinedevA gets a private e-mail from patchwatcher saying "you're a failure, learn to code better, fix this, etc.". WinedevA fixes patch up, resubmits to wine-patches-testing multiple times, finally gets it right. He does a little dance, celebrates, etc. Patchwatcher then forwards this good patch to wine-patches.
WinedevB submits a patch to wine-patches, works fine. Passes patchwatcher, no valgrind warnings, etc. Because it passed, it then forwards it to wine-patches. Unless patchwatcher somehow keeps track of all patches that have failed and been resubmitted, which seems like extra work for nothing.
I thought we had a consensus on the process I mentioned earlier...
-Austin