Joerg Mayer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:58:26AM +0100, Sake Blok wrote: >> I have not seen many >> patches being overlooked actually. There were the occasions where a review >> lasted a little longer, but most patches were commited within a couple of >> days. Maybe a patch-tracking system is a little overkill. The majority of >> patches seem to be easy to review and commit. > > Something that we have (sort of) promoted in the past was the following: > Submit your patch to the ml. In case the patch isn't committed/nacked > within 3-4 days then open a bug and attach the patch to the bug. This > way the patch won't get lost and we don't have the management overhead > of tracking all the patches in the bugtracking system.
In my experience patches are even more likely to stagnate and bitrot in the bugtracker than they are on the list. Because most patches currently go to the list, there's no impetus for anyone to go and look at bugs. Further to what's been said on the subject already, I completely understand that making committers responsibility for parts of the codebase wouldn't work: that was a pretty extreme idea :). I'm afraid I can't agree with Sake that the current format works. I do think you should seriously consider using bugzilla to track patches. You could always try it out for a bit and return to the current system if it doesn't work. On which note, here comes an email to chase up a patch... Regards, Richard _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
