On 12/01/2008, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com> wrote: > I taken the patch, because I though that > I have such card. After the truth revealed that I am not, I preferred to > not broke support for somebody hardware. If there are other users of the > same card, why do not they complain and test the patch ? This is fairly generic and doesn't necessarily just apply to your post, but here you expect the users to be *developers*; and while most people would happily try something pre-compiled, or at least merged into the source tree (so they can just do a make xxx), significantly fewer people would be wanting to experiment patching. Firstly you expect the users, most of whom are just trying the OS out, to dig through the PR database, then to patch the necessary files, configure their system (once they figure out how to edit the relevant KERNCONF file), and so on... Seriously, what's wrong with merging various patches into the source tree and surrounding them with #ifdef WITH_EXPERIMENTAL_CODE, or WITH_EXPERIMENTAL_(module name) and then allowing that in make.conf? At least that'll take the hassle of searching through PRs/mering... Alternative (for more advanced hackers) would be to have a dedicated page that lists various experimental patches categorized by module/subsystem/etc, which allows people to pull the experimental patches directly... Another alternative is to have a boolean flag on the PR so that the author can indicate that it's a patch and have the gnats mail a separate list of uncommitted patches separately to other open PRs? IgorReceived on Sat Jan 12 2008 - 14:42:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC