Why not do this: Accept the patches into trunk, and do the "code freeze" in a branch. Pros:
- Developers of patches will not get pissed (ahem) for their stuff not getting in.
In the open source world, anyone submitting a patch has to count on patiently resubmitting it a few times until the maintainer is ready for it.
That's a piece of monkey work right there that everybody would be freed from, isn't it?
Wine is no different that gcc or the linux kernel in this regard.
Who says that they're doing things efficiently?
Any developer who gets upset at a patch not getting in during a code slush needs to chill out.
I'd say that any developer that gets upset because things are horribly inefficient is in his good right :-)..... *expecting a slam dunk on the head*
- Development doesn't stop just every time a release is coming up.
You're wrong to say that development stops during a code slush. It doesn't -
Right, but there's absolutely no guarantee that those patches will ever come back.
Developers might - forget about it because they've found another way which doesn't require their fix or enhanced functionality - crash on a tropical island with a lot of girls, but unfortunately no internet - go on extended vacation, in which case it's just an unwanted delay in Wine's progress - have a thousand other reasons to not care anymore (that's not necessarily because they're angry).
the developers keep improving their new feature while waiting for the slush to be over.
Yes. But if their patches were actually *applied*, other developers could test their changes and everything would speed up a great deal, in theory at least.
- Developers can actively select whether they'd like to help with the
release (switch to '0.9-rc' branch) or do a little more crazy stuff (switch to trunk).
They can already do that; just apply the patches you're interested in.
More monkey work for the individual developer?
- Only sane patches get accepted to the RC by picking and merging
those that are approved some way or another.
Feel free to maintain an alternate tree which QA's proposed patches not yet in the main tree. There are several folks who do this for the linux kernel.
Fair 'nuff. Point taken.
- Patches don't get "LOST" as you call it..
Again, the only reason a patch might get lost is because the author of the patch didn't follow protocol, and retransmit his patch periodically.
That does not make it less of a problem for Wine. The patch would still be lost, no?
Molle, you seem to want to fix a lot of 'process' things in wine that aren't broken.
I never said broken! I'm saying that from a newcomers fantastically objective POV, there might be a more efficient way than what everybody here's used to. And I do appreciate that you take time to tell me why I'm wrong. Thanks!
How about focusing on actually fixing bugs, instead of telling us how to work?
Nah, less fun.
Just kidding!
I know that the new guy who spews fancy ideas right and left which requires the old guys to change some part of how they work is not welcome. I do apologize for being such a PITA for you guys.
I hope on the other hand that, IF it's not just me that doesn't understand a perfectly good process, but there's actual room for improvement, that you'll take some of the ideas seriously.
And I *AM* trying to chip in, I'm *not* spending all my Wine time complaining. Hope you don't think that I do. I really don't!
But I have a full time job and a very large todo list. I can't afford to spend all my time on Wine. Nothing really goes as fast as I'd like.