On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 02:13:38AM +0200, Daniel Kamil Kozar wrote:
Funny you should bring it up : I'm currently working on a patch to https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43270 . It's still in a incredibly early stage (but already makes the affected application work, which is nice) at which I wouldn't even consider making it an official submission, but I'd still love to hear comments about it (and have some questions myself anyway), especially seeing how I haven't ever done stuff in Wine before. Is sending "non-official" (i.e. without the [PATCH] prefix in the topic) patches for review to the mailing list acceptable? I don't think I've seen it mentioned in the wiki, since it only talks about sending "official" [PATCH]es.
It's not forbidden, but generally that discussion is kept to bugzilla or personal mails, I think. If you'd like some attention on a bug, you could send a mail to wine-devel referencing it, email a relevant person directly, or CC them on the bug. If you do send a RFC patch to the ML, put "PATCH RFC" in the subject and don't include a sign-off.
Andrew
On 25 July 2018 at 01:33, Zebediah Figura z.figura12@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/07/18 09:01, Alex Henrie wrote:
- Clarify that Signed-off-by means that you think a patch is good
enough to go into Wine (and not that you are obligated fix any regressions it may cause)
I know that this is a terrible time to bring this up, since Alexandre is on vacation, but I was just thinking about this and I have a concern I'd like to know how to address. I am quite clearly not the best Wine developer on the block, and, being aware of this, I'm not sure I necessarily feel comfortable saying I am *confident* that many of my patches—as I initially send them—are good enough to go into Wine. I guess the system is sort of designed this way—Alexandre, and the other reviewers, determine whether a patch is good enough, so it ultimately kind of doesn't matter whether anyone else does. But it's been stated explicitly—even at this last Wineconf—that the "standards" of the submitter have direct bearing on their Julliard Rank, and it's obviously in anyone's interest (especially us less proficient contributors) to keep a high rank. And there are patches I send where I not only can't guarantee I haven't made any accidental mistakes but am also generally unsure that I've taken the right approach. This is a concern to me since in my experience sending the patch as a RFC, or even trying to ask what the right approach is, results in a response significantly less often than I'd like. Not that I'm trying to accuse Alexandre or anyone else of being unfairly unresponsive, but my point is that a patch with my sign-off is more likely to get a review than one without, and of course in the case where my approach does seem correct it can't be committed without my sign-off.
So, what should I do about this? Am I interpreting the meaning of a sign-off too restrictively? Or is it just a matter of living with the consequences of being a mediocre developer? Which is understandable if that's the case; it's just unfortunate.
ἔρρωσθε, Zeb