-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Bruce Momjianwrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > I still think it would be best if the patch authors did the work. They
> > are the ones who care about the patch and want the review, and they're
> > in the best position to know what the status of a patch is. Others can
> > do it as well of course, in the spirit of a Wiki.
>
I very much agree.
> Does that move us in the direction of the patch tracker? That does
> raise the bar for patch submitters, though I would catch any patches
> that weren't in the tracker.
>
I suppose you could say that it would raise the bar, but for what it's
worth I would much *rather* be maintaining a wiki page / row in a wiki
table than sending emails with attachments to a list. Especially if
the wiki is equipped with clever templates for doing same*.
When you consider the hours spent reading and understanding existing
code, making changes and compiling/recompiling/regression testing that
a patch author needs to do in order to even create a patch, the extra
five minutes it takes to add a line to a wiki table doesn't really
signify. And pretty much pays for itself in terms of the immediate
satisfaction of knowing that your patch is now safely in the correct
queue.
Cheers,
BJ
* I'd be interested in helping to build such templates
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
iD8DBQFH/WxK5YBsbHkuyV0RAmQXAJ43vvIPse1HNa3Me92W706kcLeYGgCgiCM3
JjrsH7Ot5uVQrwC9JHT88hQ=
=GlX7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----