On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 11:06:32PM +0100, Richard van der Hoff wrote:
> Sake Blok wrote:
> > However, it seems like patches are now not picked up at all anymore. I
> > did not count, but I think I have not seen (m)any commits based on the
> > patches filed through bugzilla. I guess this is due to t
Sake Blok wrote:
> However, it seems like patches are now not picked up at all anymore. I
> did not count, but I think I have not seen (m)any commits based on the
> patches filed through bugzilla. I guess this is due to the fact that
> old habits of the "committers" take some time to be changed in
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 03:34:43PM -0700, Gerald Combs wrote:
> We've had a problem with patches sent to wireshark-dev being missed and
> ignored for a while now. In order to try to keep this from happening, we
> now have new patch submission guidelines: instead of sending them to the
> list, they
Mike Duigou wrote:
> Gerald Combs wrote:
>> We've had a problem with patches sent to wireshark-dev being missed and
>> ignored for a while now. In order to try to keep this from happening, we
>> now have new patch submission guidelines: instead of sending them to the
>> list, they should be sent to
+1 for using bugzilla to manage patches rather than the mailing lists.
I recently created issues for two uncommitted patches that I had
previously posted to the mailing list hoping that creating issues would
encourage developer action.
Gerald Combs wrote:
> We've had a problem with patches sent
We've had a problem with patches sent to wireshark-dev being missed and
ignored for a while now. In order to try to keep this from happening, we
now have new patch submission guidelines: instead of sending them to the
list, they should be sent to Bugzilla and marked for review.
A page discussing t
