Op 8-2-2011 1:55, sarah.j.sm...@nokia.com schreef: > Also the need for a workflow - so you can start a review by submitting a > patch for review, go back& forth a few times, and then close the review with > a result code. IMHO its this last one that email sucks at as a "review tool" > - there is no way to determine whether a review ever got done, or what > happened to it. I think this is very important, though you should be able to start such a workflow even before you have actual code. This way, you can discuss whether an idea for a piece of code would fit into Qt, before you start investing a lot of time actually writing it or working it up to Qt standards, documenting it, etc. I think it would be beneficiary if the review if a certain functionality belongs in Qt would be possible, and the relevant maintainer is "on board" on that, before you start investing a lot of time on it. Of course, the actual code will still have to meet all the requirements, but the discussion on whether this belongs in Qt or not could be finished. This can save a lot of disappointments for would-be contributors, I think.
André _______________________________________________ Opengov mailing list Opengov@qt-labs.org http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
