1 |
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
4 |
> > > Many users seem to think |
5 |
> > > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the |
6 |
> > > most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't |
7 |
> > > be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are |
8 |
> > > not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > But if a developer tells them what is wrong and to reopen the bug when |
11 |
> > they've fixed it, it shouldn't be a problem. And that's what I've seen |
12 |
> > in this case. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I think you all misunderstand MY position on this. I provided ebuilds in |
16 |
> the hope it would save the maintainers time and effort. If the work I |
17 |
> did is 90% to spec, then there really is no reason for the maintainer |
18 |
> NOT to take it, tweak it, and maybe send a note or add a comment to the |
19 |
> bug as to what was fixed. It would ensure two things: 1) that the user |
20 |
> will (hopefully) not make the same mistake again, and 2) get the ebuild |
21 |
> upstream quicker. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Sending it back to the contributor only will waste more time. |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
You will get exactly the same effect if you were to send a patch to LKML |
27 |
to fix or improve some or other part of the kernel, and either the |
28 |
coding style, or the way it is fixed is not to Linus or the specific |
29 |
subsystem maintainer's liking. |
30 |
|
31 |
The general idea is that if somebody want to get involved, they should |
32 |
be prepared to to take the time to learn how to do fairly decent |
33 |
patches/whatever. This makes review easier, and also minimises the |
34 |
workload on whatever maintainer. |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Martin Schlemmer |