Re: Module-specific patch procedures?

[Telsa Gwynne <hobbit aloss ukuu org uk>]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 01:39:06PM +0100 or thereabouts, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> The Nautilus maintainers like to get patches emailed to their mailing list.
> They hate getting patches only in bugzilla. Most other maintainers hate
> getting patches on their mailing lists, and love getting patches in
> bugzilla. That's a statement and not a judgement. It's their module and they
> do a wonderful job.
> 
> Would it be possible for bugzilla to sometimes say "The maintainers of this
> module prefer to receive source code patches on the <emailaddress> mailing
> list."?
> 
> Some people have suggested a big page describing the various ways that
> various maintainers like to work. Personally, I don't think that there is
> that much variety.

It's not that there's much variety. I mean, you're basically saying
"this lot like bugzilla patches" and "this lot like mailing list
patches", yes?

The problem is knowing which is which; and then knowing which list
is the right place.

I met this the hard way some time ago. Dave Jones (the kernel
patch penguin) had made a bunch of one-line clean-up patches
for Gnome and wanted to know "now what"? It took me a while
of whinging on IRC to find out what to send where. 

As I recall, the other module which has a patches mailing list
is evolution. evo-patches, perhaps? evolution-patches? 

I agree that a list would be handy though. Perhaps it could
go with the list of "these programs should not be entered
into Bugzilla: bugs for them go elsewhere" that we keep. 

For that matter, I hadn't realised it was a good idea to put
backtraces into the main body of the bug. I assiduously was
putting them all into attachments until I got bugmail and found
that someone else was pasting them back into the main body.
If there are different ideas about this from module to module,
that would also be nice to know. 

Telsa