Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:58:26AM +0100, Sake Blok wrote:
I have not seen many
patches being overlooked actually. There were the occasions where a review
lasted a little longer, but most patches were commited within a couple of
days. Maybe a patch-tracking system is a little overkill. The majority of
patches seem to be easy to review and commit.
Something that we have (sort of) promoted in the past was the following:
Submit your patch to the ml. In case the patch isn't committed/nacked
within 3-4 days then open a bug and attach the patch to the bug. This
way the patch won't get lost and we don't have the management overhead
of tracking all the patches in the bugtracking system.
It would also be good to put [PATCH] or some such in the Synopsis of the
bug. Otherwise when scanning the list of bugs it's not obvious that not
only are you requesting feature X but you've already implemented it.
[Of course if you click the box that says your attachment is a patch
then we can search for patches based on that field but that doesn't work
if you've compressed or otherwise made your patch not look like a patch
to bugzilla.]
