Chris Waterson wrote:
>
> Christopher Blizzard wrote:
>
> Getting a= hurts (probably you -- drivers@ -- more than me!), but I
> think it did make a positive difference.
<snip>
> I'll be a bit sorry to see it go. My $0.02.
<aol>Me too!</aol>
Admittedly I've only ever made one patch to Mozilla, but it was during
the 0.9.2 timeframe so I got to see the a= process in action. For my one
datapoint, it took a month to get r/sr, and about 2 hours to get a=. I
don't think the a= was the bit that slowed things down :)
I also do get the impression it made a difference, and my guess for why
is blizzard's fourth hypothesis: "o People were self-policing themselves
and didn't bother trying to send us high-risk patches because they knew
of the drivers barrier". I think just *knowing* that there's somebody
who's going to be evaluating your patch from a cost/benefit perspective
makes people more careful and more likely to ensure that the
cost/benefit ratio really is good enough to be worth checking in.
Just my .4 nickels.
Stuart.
