Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 23:47:55 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Joseph Koshy <jkoshy@FreeBSD.ORG>, eivind@hub.freebsd.org, committers@hub.freebsd.org, vanmaren@fast.cs.utah.edu Subject: Re: Swat teams (was: problem reports) Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.02.9812092335240.4915-100000@fly.HiWAAY.net> In-Reply-To: <19981210154234.D12688@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Greg Lehey wrote: # From what I've seen, the big problem is not the cases where people # submit patches, but where they submit PRs with no fix and with hardly # enough information to guess what the problem is (or even if there is a # problem). That's certainly what I found at Tandem, when I was # insulated from the customers by a layer of supposedly intelligent and # educuated ``analysts''. Yes, having a patch makes things much easier, but as Bruce will argue, just because there is a patch doesn't mean it is correct. I know for me at least it is convenient to be able to look at the some 1600+ PRs that are still open and pick out the ones that are easier to fix. I've been trying to prepend '[patch]' to the ones that have patches that seem reasonably correct. Does anybody else see this as being a benificial practice? You are also spot on that the hardest ones to deal with are the ones with very little information. The thing that really gets my goat is the vast majority of these are sent from people who's Email address is incorrect or otherwise inoperable. This makes it *very* difficult to get more information when the replies bounce. :( -steve # Greg # -- # See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers # finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key # To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.4.02.9812092335240.4915-100000>