Re: gnome-utils patch

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 16:42 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 10/4/05, Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> wrote:
> > I guess it is, but usually it is much quicker to send the patch
> > directly, and when that doesn't work, add it to bugzilla :)
> 
> Well, I guess there's a number of poeple that do this but to me it
> sounds like a scary slippery slope that could lead to things getting
> out of hand, especially with this statement of yours (just imagine if
> everyone starts bypassing bugzilla and posts all patches to
> d-d-l--you've suggested that it's effective in some sense or another).
>
I did it this way, because for years, in the Evolution team, we found
out patches got lost in Bugzilla, whereas having them sent to a list
(evolution-patches@, not the main list), made them more visible to us,
the developers. Of course, if that behaviour is not acceptable, I'll
just submit my patches to bugzilla.

I am not going to discuss whether that's a good idea or not, since we
already had that discussion for Evolution for weeks, but in my
experience, people tend to pay more attention to mailing lists than to
bugzilla.

Maybe we want a desktop-devel-patches@ list?

>  Of course, I'm just one of the jerks that thinks d-d-l volume is way
> too high...  ;-)  Seriously, though, I'd personally prefer if d-d-l
> was used for discussions that can't be contained to a single module.
> 
yes, you are right. Maybe each project should have their own lists for
this sort of things? In fact, some modules in GNOME CVS have no
MAINTAINERS file, so it is very difficult to find out who are those
maintainers, and thus the first thought is to send it to d-d-l, and thus
its volume increases.
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>