The speedy commit of patches...

[Michael]

Scott Wheeler wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>   
>> Michael Pyne wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> [..]
>>>
>>> If it works I'll commit it when I get home tomorrow if Scott doesn't beat me 
>>> to it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>  - Michael Pyne
>>>   
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     
>>>       
>> 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.
>
> In the case with those recent patches, I just returned from 3 weeks of 
> vacation and had lots of mail to read.  As such I couldn't commit them 
> right then, though most of the patches do satisfy (b).
>
> ....taking a look at those specifically now...
>
> -Scott
> _______________________________________________
> taglib-devel mailing list
> taglib-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/taglib-devel
>
>
>   
Thanks for the quick response and the fixing of the Xiph issue!

How about the other two? I get the impression they are not that complex, 
they basically are just above typo-level if you ask me. Both of those 
patches are used already in Play (which is developed by the author of 
the patches, Stephen F. Booth). The timePerFrame patch is used already 
in Songbird. They don't seem to cause any trouble in either Play or 
Songbird.

Regards,
Michael