-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2011-03-08 06:34, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
I think a better question would be put to Miller or Hans, or the other admins-- can someone please explain how the patch review process works?
it's very simple: each patch is assigned to a person (well, let's assume it is). whenever the assignee feels like it, they would browse to sf.net and have a look at the patches that are assigned to them (and probably at patches that are not assigned to them, though it seems that they should) if they have a good they, they eventually apply a given patch (considering they like how it is done), fix a given bug (considering they find a way to do it) or just close an invalid report.
there is an agreement, that only miller manages the core Pd. (hence there are a lot of patches in the tracker submitted by hans or me or other "admins")
Not only is the patch in question is now over a month old with no signs of the review having begun, but it was submitted to the tracker in direct response to a user's request for the feature. If there's a problem with it there should at least be a relevant comment by this point.
indeed.
here comes the usual rant (you can safely skip it, if not in the mood): feel free to employ one (or several) of the people responsible for fixing your problems. then you can define the review process (e.g. that people have to react on an issue within a minimum time). you could even press them into accepting a given patch (or to come up with an alternative solution) since you are interested in getting a feature into core Pd, i suggest to hire miller. in the meantime you might have to accept that people have dynamic priorities which might not overlap with yours. end of the usual rant.
mfgasdr IOhannes