|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: idea for formalising committal of new features.Re: idea for formalising committal of new features.
From: Dave Hooper <dave_at_beermex.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:45:37 +0100 I would say that it's about more than just committing it. If nobody with commit access cares enough about committing a patch, then who is going to maintain, bugfix, and document (and translate) that feature, and going forward ensure that the feature remains correctly documented and tested? I would suggest we don't need to formalise a procedure to get patches committed; but we might need to formalise something more on ownership after something has been committed. For patches that already include full documentation and no bugs, maybe all that's required indeed is agreement amongst developers that the patch gets committed and becomes an accepted part of rockbox trunk, but that might be less likely if it's a feature that developers themselves have no interest in. But also (speaking generally now) there are probably a number of patches that don't tick these boxes currently, and for those the trick might be to do all the work upfront and then try to convince devs that it is ready for inclusion. Received on 2010-08-23 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |