On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr writes:
Yeah, maybe a very generic 'Needs review' email to wine-devel would be enough. It would also be the clue to the other Wine developpers:
- that you're not going to be duplicating Alexandre's work if you review this patch
- to look at the patch, dissect it to see what is wrong
- if it is in your domain of competence and it looks good, post an approval message
- to test the patch
- and help its author get it accepted
That should really be the default behavior, all patches need review; there's no reason to wait until I have looked at a patch to look at it. If you see a patch in an area that you know anything about, please review it, don't wait to see my reaction first.
Agreed. That's how it should work in an ideal world.
The problem is that when reading wine-patches it is easy to look at a patch and think "I don't really know anything about this, I'll let someone more knowledgeable look into it" (and really reviewing patches takes time). Patches that get dropped deserve more effort, if only because by then we know noone else came to a definitive conclusion on them. Yet most of the patches that get dropped don't get a comment from other Wine developpers either and part of the reason is that these patches are difficult to identify.
Of course clearly identifying dropped patches could also encourage developpers to only review those patches and ignore wine-patches which would be bad. It's all a tradeoff. I'm willing to accept that we currently have the best tradeoff possible.