-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Wednesday, April 09, 2008 19:06:30 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:59:43 -0300
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
>
>> Damn, this is starting to get to be a trend ... but, I can't but
>> agree 100% with this ... we *can* enforce, and I doubt it will have
>> much (if any) affect on the # of patches that come in, since ppl want
>> to see their work committed, and will follow any *reaonable*
>> procedure we have for them to do so ...
>>
>> Do other large projects accept patches 'ad hoc' like we do?
>> FreeBSD? Linux? KDE?
>>
>
> KDE is fairly structured. Linux... I don't know. I do know that at one
> time a very well known Alan slammed a very well known Linux for using
> his inbox as a patch queue (funny isn't it, no offense Bruce). FreeBSD I
> would think you would know better than I. However even Debian for all
> of its warts is *very* structured.
FreeBSD, *everything* goes through GnATs ... bug reports *and* patches ...
- --
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkf9g/4ACgkQ4QvfyHIvDvNRhgCgtxXpF9+9ruMRfOmVBQsHctfe
Z2AAoJbKGw05+BAxLaw38MxjiU41dMrS
=O5g6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----