Improving the handling of PR:s

[Kostik Belousov]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:26:12AM +0100, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
> Peter Schuller wrote:
> > The second, possibly worse effect, is that the original submitter, I believe, 
> > is less inclined to spend more time in the future contributing, if said 
> > submitter feels the work is wasted because no one commits or even comments on 
> > the PR.
> 
> I can confirm this, one of our members started writing a new driver for the
> ES1370 sound chip (following the hardware docs), because the current driver
> has sampling rate and other issues (at least for this user) to this day. To
> see how commitments are received he sent a one-line patch for the existing
> driver kern/98167.
> 
> It was never committed due to lack of further feedback from others and our
> member stopped developing the driver. Since he explained his patch with
> stating that the current implementation doesn't follow the HW-specs, I don't
> think that further testing would have been required to commit it to a
> developer branch like CURRENT or RELENG.

Did you read the audit-trail ? I taken the patch, because I though that
I have such card. After the truth revealed that I am not, I preferred to
not broke support for somebody hardware. If there are other users of the
same card, why do not they complain and test the patch ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20080112/b9d627d8/attachment.pgp