2008/8/19 Markus Hitter mah@jump-ing.de:
Am 19.08.2008 um 00:41 schrieb James Hawkins:
when the patch doesn't get committed, you should look back at it and really think outside the box about what could possibly be wrong with the patch.
Essentially, you ask to change code on unfounded guesses (I did the best to my knowledge in the first place already) and to commit into a black hole until some unknown, not communicating person is satisfied to her/his taste.
I agree to a point. There are certain things you can check (e.g. do the tests pass on Wine) that usually block a patch.
Other things it can be difficult to spot. Especially if you are not used to the coding conventions, or Windows idiosyncracies.
You assume it wasn't noticed. I can guarantee that's not the case.
So, what did the reviewing person then? Sitting there smiling "Heh, look, he could have done better, but, ha-ha, I won't tell him"? I hope this wasn't the case.
This is why it is important to keep track of the patches you have sent.
Give Alexandre a bit more credit than that.
I'm fine with Alexandre personally but not so sure about Wine's current patch receiving process.
That said I'm perfectly fine if Wine people consider this process as being effective. There's no law enforcing Wine to accept what I've sent.
I think Alexandre does a fantastic job.
[...] or ask the community or Alexandre what the problem is.
Correct. Communication is a plus.
Which is why it is important to ask why your patches have not been committed. Whenever I have asked, I have got a good response.
I have found that this is easier to do on the IRC, but like with everything it requires time and commitment.
- Reece