On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 09:45 +0200, Gregers Petersen wrote: > 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. > > The suggestions which have come until now are (just to list them): > > * 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?). > > 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? > > It would be really good to extend the list of package maintainers, then > patches for packages could be send directly to the maintainer - or?
It would be great to see this come to a conclusion as I have submitted a number of patches over the last few weeks which seem to have gone uncommitted. Like other submitters have pointed out, I'm left in the dark as to whether it's just a time issue or whether my patches are just unsuitable and unsure as to whether I should continue to submit patches or just continue to maintain my own local changes here on an ongoing basis. My patches certainly are not huge nor complicated, indeed. But if they can save somebody else from duplicating my work, that is of course desirable. b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
