Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis wrote on Tue, 3 Mar 2009 at 09:12 +1100:
...
> If there was a requirement for a *nix port of my patch someone else would have
> to do it - other than me.
>
> It gets reviewed by someone on the list - who points out that it will only
> work on Windows, after which there is no more discussion.
> No one has volunteered to do the *nix work and I can't do it for myself.
>
> Thus, as the patch manager - do I bring it back to people's attention and see
> if "I" can drum up support for someone to do the required work - or is it a
You can raise the thread again. But if no one expresses interest in
finishing the patch or helping the OP do so, archive the patch and
move on. Not all patches get committed.
> case of , well we're volunteering our time - so if it gets done - well that's
> great ... but if it doesn't too bad and there is nothing more for me to do (as
> Patch Manager) - obviously no one else in interested / worried about the
> Windows only patch)?
>
As a rule, we expect the OP to be responsible for writing the missing parts.
That said, there are exceptions: e.g., in your example, we don't expect
*nix devs to fix bugs in the Windows build system; and we shouldn't
reject a bindings patch because it unearthed a segfault in the core
C libraries.
> Now saying all that , by answering some of the earlier paragraphs, it would
> seem to be appropriate for me to bring it back into the foreground for some
> further discussion - even if it turned out to be along the lines of;
> "This really isn't an issue for anyone else - and we have higher priorities to
> address - archive it off, for now at least, anyway"
>
> And again thanks for the help.
>
>
> Beau,.
(And I probably said this already, but you can check the archives for how
we did it in the past.)
Daniel
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1262566
Received on 2009-03-03 20:07:37 CET