> The original thought behind the present model for submission of patches > was based on the existing procedure for kernel patch submission - it > looked like a model which worked, and by implementing it OpenWrt would > "teach" people a skill which could be needed later on. I don't disagree, but do not think OpenWRT has quite replicated that structure. We have good submissions and proper formatting, but there's still no one (or at least seemingly so) responsible for actually taking the submissions and implementing them. I've seen "get the package maintainer's attention and hope" on #openwrt-dev before, but even that seems to seldom work.
> * Keep things as they are. > * 'Ticket' based submission system. > * 'Ticket' based submission system with added notification to -devel. > * Launchpad (as new platform). > * (Did I forget something?). IMO, yes - keep things the same but have a developer christened as patch-wrangler. > I think it might be needed to make a distinction between submission of > patches targeted at packages, and patches targeted at the "base" system > itself? That would be most certainly helpful, but it seems most of the devs working on -base are nearly too busy to do their own changes, much less review and apply 3rd-party patches. > It would be really good to extend the list of package maintainers, then > patches for packages could be send directly to the maintainer - or? As long as those package maintainers are reasonably responsive and have commit access. It would also need to be very clear who each package's maintainer is; right now, one has to read through the SVN log and hope there's enough evidence to select someone that cares enough about the package not to ignore you. _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
