Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Rockbox Weirdness
Re: 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
> > 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...
Received on 2006-02-23