I know it is very frustrating when pathces and ideas are being ignored. Please, for many of the developers of wireshark, wireshark is only an interesting hobby for which time to commit is very limited.
Life and work situations affect time being available. This unfortuantely results in situations like this. Myself is as guilty as everyone else in being restricted in how much spare time is available to commit to important items such as discussions and patch reviews. I have hopes I will be able to contribute much more time to these issues once my work situation is resolved and I start my new job. On 3/8/07, Richard van der Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Douglas Pratley wrote: > > I submitted two patches earlier this year: > > ... > > Can anybody tell me their current status? That is: > > To follow up what Doug has said, I have to say that I've found my recent > experiences in getting patches applied less than positive. Anders > applied quite a few, but there was one particular patch which I had to > ask _four_ times to be reviewed before anything happened. Whilst I > understand that everyone is busy, I'd like to give the developer's > perspective here and point out that it is incredibly frustrating to > spend a few days working on a new feature, polishing a patch and > submitting it, only to have it ignored. Nobody is suggesting that you > should apply patches without appropriate review - even a reply > explaining why the patch can't be reviewed right now would be something. > Ultimately you are only going to end up alienating your developer base, > which, particularly for a product like Wireshark with its millions of > dissectors, would be a disaster. > > Might I suggest that what is needed is a change to the procedures for > patch submission, review, and application. It seems to me that the > current problem is that no individual committer has responsibility for > reviewing and applying patches - so they tend to get ignored in the hope > that somebody else will have more time. How about if you required > patches to be submitted to the Bugzilla, with the responsibility for > different parts of the system divided amongst the committers? Then at > least everybody could keep track of what's on the todo list, and patches > wouldn't get lost in the general noise of the mailing list as I fear > they currently do. > > Anyway, it's not for me to tell you how to run your project, but I do > think it's only fair to point out that if the status quo continues, you > are going to end up with a lot of frustrated developers. > > Regards, > > Richard > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
