From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23481 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 12:59:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23473 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 12:59:05 -0000 Subject: Patch policy From: Gary Thomas To: eCos Maintainers Content-Type: text/plain Organization: MLB Associates Message-Id: <1052225944.30126.4370.camel@hermes> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 12:59:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 ** Disclaimer: I'm sure that I'm as guilty as anyone There seems to be a gap [i.e. failing] in the response to patches from outsiders. Sometimes they are handled quite quickly, sometimes never. I think we need to establish some policies on how to handle these efficiently. In an ideal world, patches from outside our group would be posted to a database which could be queried by anyone. Maybe the easiest way to do this would be to forward the patch to BugZilla. At the very least, we should try and assign a patch to a maintainer within some short period of time and then it's that person's responsibility to take care of it - whatever the outcome. As is, I see things come in that I'm comfortable with that sometimes I take up, sometimes I leave by. In the latter case, I simply assume that someone else will handle it. I think this is the failing. I know everyone is busy (or hopefully so!) and this is certainly not a finger-pointing, but our credibility may be affected. -- Gary Thomas MLB Associates