On 10/29/2014 01:21 PM, Indrek Altpere wrote:
My previous response was mainly to Ruslan's reply, that 30 days waiting time could/should be considered the norm in some cases. To which I pointed out that the 4 patches Alex asked about are seemingly simple patches, that only add tests and those patches have already been verified to run correctly by testbot.
To Goujons's reply: "don't waste their precious time and stop whining" As per Alex's comment from https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2014-October/105419.html
"slackner, puk, and Andre_H gave me a ton of help over IRC over the past couple of days"
Time has already been spent (wasted?) by other active Wine developers who are also constantly contributing to Wine.
Perhaps there should be some more clear way to let the developers know that their patches are still not good enough (even to be reviewed and commented on) instead of checking the calendar to guess the status?
Oh, we have provided a ton of feedback. And the patches did improve from a test coverage point of view and that isn't anymore an issue.
But the code still could look a lot better and some of the previous feedback wasn't addressed. There is an impedance mismatch between the code looking good for Alex and looking good for Wine.
bye michael
-----Original Message----- From: Henri Verbeet [mailto:hverbeet@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:58 PM To: Indrek Altpere Cc: Ruslan Kabatsayev; Alex Henrie; Alexandre Julliard; Wine Devel Subject: Re: Need feedback on first four UTF-7 patches
On 29 October 2014 09:47, Indrek Altpere efbiaiinzinz@hotmail.com wrote:
So unless there is something wrong with the coding style (which hasn't been commented on after the last patches), shouldn't such patches (only tests, verified as valid by testbot) get included a lot faster than 10-30 days??
In general, yes, if your patches are still "New" after about a week, they're probably going to stay that way. That usually only happens when not reviewing the patches is likely to end up being more of a benefit to the project than reviewing them.