|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Rockbox WeirdnessRe: Rockbox Weirdness
From: PF <kernel_at_pkts.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:10:18 -0800 Would it be a good idea to change policy, so that the patch tracker isn't full of deadwood? Delete anything older than x years old? I haven't looked at any of the patches, so I can't say how good an idea that would be. On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 06:55 +0100, Linus Nielsen Feltzing wrote: > Tom Cole wrote: > > It would be nice to have the patches applied to the current CVS, but I > > don't think I could take all the frustration of trying to get them > > applied by the dev team and seeing then slowly rot away in the patch > > tracker. > > Most "rotting" patches are not included for a reason. Some of the most > common reasons are: > > 1) the author doesn't care about whether the patch works on all targets > or not. > > 2) the code is substandard > > 3) the feature is too esoteric to be included > > We usually approach the author about how to fix up the code for CVS > inclusion, but then he/she loses interest and the patch remains in the > tracker. > > > Do you know there are 207 patches in there, some dating back to 2003? > > Yes, and what makes you think that all patches are bound to be included > in CVS? > > > I saw what happened with the original bookmarking patch - started in > > 2002, finally included 2004. > > Yes, but also that code needed a lot of fixing before it could get > included. I could also add the usual blabla about working for free on my > spare time etc... > > Linus Received on 2006-02-23 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |