Re: [evolution-patches] Hidden agendas and Soft Targets [Was: Re: Warning fixes]
- From: Pavel Roskin <proski gnu org>
- To: Harish Krishnaswamy <kharish novell com>
- Cc: evolution-patches gnome org, Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>
- Subject: Re: [evolution-patches] Hidden agendas and Soft Targets [Was: Re: Warning fixes]
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:57:11 -0400
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 15:31 +0530, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
> It is indeed sad you are not going to do any more work on Evolution. But
> is it true that your patches have not been accepted ?
I've been tracking the CVS for some time and I didn't see my warning
fixes applied. Then I removed the sources. Nobody has ever told me
that my latest warning fixes have been applied.
I've checked out the CVS again to see what was applied.
> I just grepped the archives for your posts and found this :
> Evolution Hackers :
> Posted : Sun Aug 13 07:51:24 GMT 2006
> Response : Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:45:00 +0530
This is a fix for a problem found by Valgrind. My patch was wrong
because it tries two things at once - fix the warning and replace
numbers with symbolic names. The issue is still not addressed in CVS.
That's why I advised Kjartan not to do many things in one patch. I'm
not sure if my advise was understood though.
> Posted : Mon Aug 14 23:58:11 GMT 2006
> Response : Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:02:55 +0530
This is a fix for crash on 64-bit systems. This is in CVS and also in
> Posted : Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:58:12 -0400
> Response : Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:13:02 +0800
This was applied.
> Posted : Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:58:14 -0400
> Response : Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:50:57 +0000
This was applied.
> Evolution Patches :
> Posted : Thu Sep 21 06:04:53 GMT 2006
> Response : Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:33:33 -0400
> This was from Matthew Barnes suggesting one change he would prefer on
> the patch.
> No follow-ups on the patch. And this has not been committed yet.
Correct. I don't think it wasn't committed because I didn't re-send the
patch with that minor change. Although different projects can have
different rules. Maybe I should try it.
There was also the discussion whether it's better to file bug reports.
Again, I don't know if that was the reason why my patch wasn't applied.
I can try that too.
In any case, I wasn't not working on any more patches and I didn't have
any indication that any pending patched would be applied, hence my reply
that I don't expect any of my patches to overlap with other patches.
> Pavel : We welcome your contributions - We need you guys - but a
> friendly nudge can help get things moving more than a mail like yours -
> I understand what you must be feeling but please do take a look at
> Bugzilla/CVS sources/your own mailbox to actually look for some evidence
> before making any sweeping generalizations that the team ignores patches
> or does not respect contributions. Such mails shape a lot of incorrect
> perceptions and expectations that I believe are not your intentions but
> these are real consequences to the team and potential contributors
I don't think I was making any "sweeping generalizations". I offered my
advise based on my very limited experience with the project, and my
recommendation was to "go ahead", not to "give up" or to "wait until I'm
> And p-l-e-a-s-e do not let yourself be (mis)used to run somebody else's
I think you misinterpreted my post.
Anyway, it's nice to see people caring about patches. I think I'll just
resend the remaining stuff.
] [Thread Prev