Well, David, you're a committer, right? What would you suggest a person do? I hear you on the patches - but, to be honest, patches are suggestions - there's no rule that states that they must be applied. The person committing the changes may, in fact, have a different perspective on the changes you made and not include your patch - but derive something from your patch that does get committed.
My view on filing a fix is: Hey, here's my suggestion - oh, and I thought it through enough that I actually coded it and made it compile and TESTED it - it works for me. A good example of the debacle a commiter could find himself involved in is this latest thing with sub-apps that Steve Ditlinger and I have been hitting on. I'm sure you've followed it. The question is: Do we ahere strongly to this, or relax to include that too - that's a judgement call on the part of the committer, IMHO. My original patch was simply to make things work the way I understood Craig wanted them to. That didn't suit Steve, so he submitted another patch for what he wanted. Then, Martin piped up and suggested neither of us fully comprehended the situation (and we didn't! He had good points!) and last night I hacked out another patch - which I have yet to attack because I'm waiting for suggestions on whether I've covered all the bases or not. I think I have, but I can't claim to know Struts as well as those who are commiters for this piece of the machinery. In the end, one of the three patches will probably be used, and it's really irrelevant to me which one it is. I just want sub-app selection to be bulletproof :-) David Graham wrote: > Agreed, but it's frustrating when you submit a patch or documentation > and its not applied or responded to. It seems like they can get lost > in the shuffle. > > Dave -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
