[forum] XFree86's Future and thoughts and suggestions

[Joseph Moss]

Mark Vojkovich <mvojkovi@XFree86.Org> wrote:
 
> > >Sending it to Xpert is the wrong place. Patches should be submitted to the
> > >XFree86 bugzilla, where is can be properly tracked. Before the recent 
> > >addition of the bugzilla, patches should be sent to patches@xfree86.org or
> > >fixes@xfree86.org. That is where the people committing changes are looking
> > >for stuff.
> > 
> > I'm pleased to see a central location now to submit patches. I used to see 
> > them head to Xpert so I'm out of the loop on that.
> 
>    The patches list has been around for years and was the correct
> place to send patches to.  Xpert never was.  Patches are likely to
> get overlooked if sent to xpert.

I think sending patches to Xpert goes (went) along with testing and
keeping CVS-HEAD buildable like you mention below.  The xpert list was
a place where you could show the code and possibly get a little feedback
before submitting it.  But, if you felt it was ready for inclusion, then
you needed to send it to patches@.

> > 
> > >The only thing XFree86 is likely to resist is anything that causes the 
> > >overall code quality to turn to crap. If we blindly applied every single 
> > >patch that was submitted, this is what would happen. The same thing would 
> > >happen to the Linux kernel, which is why Linus rejects somethings that don't 
> > >meet his quality guidelines.
> > 
> > Right, but we don't even know what those quality guidelines are really. 
> > CVS-HEAD by definition isn't supposed to work, I'm amazed that it really does 
> > :-)
> 
>    Actually, I believe the unwritten rule for XFree86 CVS-HEAD is that
> it's always supposed to work.  It always must build and you are
> not allowed to check in stuff that you know breaks things.  And if
> you do break things, you are expected to fix them or revert them
> in a timely manner.  It's OK to check in code so that people can
> test it, but only after you're fairly confident that it's not
> broken in an obvious way.  I try very hard to avoid regressions.
> CVS-HEAD was never a tree you were allowed to break. 
> 
>    If people want to break things, that belongs in another branch.