Difference between revisions of "Talk:Patches"

From Audacity Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Yes, new page for long comments.)
(response to James about my mess)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
* '''[[User:Edgar|Ed]] 08Feb10:''' Should we create a page for a patch when we want to add a long review in the comments section?
 
* '''[[User:Edgar|Ed]] 08Feb10:''' Should we create a page for a patch when we want to add a long review in the comments section?
 
* '''[[User:James|James]]:''' Definitely.  Have done so.  Please don't leave wiki-tables in such a mess as you did again.
 
* '''[[User:James|James]]:''' Definitely.  Have done so.  Please don't leave wiki-tables in such a mess as you did again.
 +
* '''[[User:Edgar|Ed]] 08Feb10:''' Mess? Other than the excessive length (for which we had no standard and I suggested one) it looked fine here.
  
  

Revision as of 22:36, 8 February 2010



Lengthy Comments

  • Ed 08Feb10: Should we create a page for a patch when we want to add a long review in the comments section?
  • James: Definitely. Have done so. Please don't leave wiki-tables in such a mess as you did again.
  • Ed 08Feb10: Mess? Other than the excessive length (for which we had no standard and I suggested one) it looked fine here.


Numbers

  • Gale 13Dec09: James, thanks for adding the numbers. I almost did that, but changed my mind because when patches are removed, we get 002, 006, 007, 009, 0010... for the active patches, like you see for active bugs on Bugzilla. Maybe that's OK.
  • James: No problem with discontinuous numbers. It shows we have been busy :-). Thanks for trialling text-file upload to wiki. I don't see a security problem with it, and if there isn't, yes we could use that.


Where do Patches Live?

Options include

  • (older patches) On audacity-devel (link to Nabble)
  • On audacity-quality (lacks a Nabble archive because risk of unwanted "help-me posts" deemed too great, so must use a read-only archive)
  • As attachments to bugs in Bugzilla
  • On this wiki, possibly with a wiki extension
  • In Google code issue tracker (repurposed as a patch tracker).


  • Gale: I'm not convinced yet about general use of Bugzilla for patches. Patches of the sort we're trying to track here have typically been for hitherto un-noted (by us) bugs, or are minor feature improvements that no one else suggested before.
  • Gale: Hmm. And now we've gone to Bugzilla, it makes Bugzilla more logical as the location, yet for aspiring-coder to post a patch there, (s)he has to have Bugzilla access. On Bugzilla, it may be necessary to create an issue just to hold a very speculative enhancement patch. Having patches spread around in different locations doesn't appeal to me, and creating a -devel - or -quality e-mail just for the patch doesn't seem ideal. I'm tending towards Wiki, I think.


What Kinds of Patches are These?

  • Gale: So, I'm kind of thinking this current page isn't for issues that are on a formal tracker. If someone sent a patch for something we'd raise as a Px, it would go on the formal tracker as now. I'm wary of cluttering a formal tracker with some of the patches we've been sent in the past, which haven't been well thought out, and the submitter hasn't even responded to the feedback.