The speedy commit of patches...

[Michael Pyne]

On Friday 08 June 2007, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> > No offense, I'm just curious. Is there some priority model on what gets
> > commited quick and what has to have more review?
> >
> > I am asking because some people post patches that wait for months while
> > other patches land within days. [...]
>
> It's not nearly so systematic.  For me there are two things that decide
> things -- (a) if I have time to commit it when I read the mail the first
> time and (b) if I can apply it without first spending some time to make
> sure that it's correct.

And in my case it's basically the same thing, modulo the fact that I have very 
little free time day to day due to the fact that I'm in the Navy.

So basically at this point in time I can only review patches for bugs that 
are "obvious" with fairly simple fixes.  Anything harder to reproduce or fix 
and I don't really have the time to dedicate to it. :(

Of course I concentrate harder on bugs which are crasher/data loss but I deal 
only peripherally with taglib so I'm not knowledgably enough to review a lot 
of the harder patches.

The fact that the two bugs that were mailed to the list included patches and 
an explanation of the problem helped of course, as all I had to do for review 
was verify that the problem existed (and made sense from the symptoms of the 
bug report), instead of having to determine what the bug was.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/taglib-devel/attachments/20070608/a501fe29/attachment.pgp