On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:13:43PM +0000, Richard van der Hoff wrote:
> Joerg Mayer wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:58:26AM +0100, Sake Blok wrote:
> >> I have not seen many
> >> patches being overlooked actually. There were the occasions where a review
> >> lasted a little longer, but most patches were commited within a couple of
> >> days. Maybe a patch-tracking system is a little overkill. The majority of
> >> patches seem to be easy to review and commit.
> >
> > Something that we have (sort of) promoted in the past was the following:
> > Submit your patch to the ml. In case the patch isn't committed/nacked
> > within 3-4 days then open a bug and attach the patch to the bug. This
> > way the patch won't get lost and we don't have the management overhead
> > of tracking all the patches in the bugtracking system.
>
> In my experience patches are even more likely to stagnate and bitrot in
> the bugtracker than they are on the list. Because most patches currently
> go to the list, there's no impetus for anyone to go and look at bugs.
...
> I'm afraid I can't agree with Sake that the current format works. I do
> think you should seriously consider using bugzilla to track patches. You
> could always try it out for a bit and return to the current system if it
> doesn't work.
Hmm, I don't understand which part wouldn't work. Stage 1 of submitting
a patch is to send it to the ml - in most cases, the patch will be
submitted/commented on quickly. In those cases, where this doesn't work
open a bug and attach the patch. That has worked fine in the past, or
how many bugs with the topic patch or something similar are open?
ciao
Joerg
--
Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.