On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:15:35 -0600, Bill Clementson wrote:
> patches been incorporated into cvs. Since I'm a relatively new
> participant to open source projects, could someone tell me what the
> "standard" process is for incorporating patches from programmers who
> aren't registered as project developers? One of the advantages
The current process for ILISP is an informal one. Patches are mostly sent
to one of our mailing lists, and they are dealt with by whoever, among the
maintainers, has some time to do it.
I used to do it more often in the past, but I am currently in a work/other
stuff "busy loop" from which I haven't been able to escape yet. I hope to
be able to--really--clear things in a few weeks, and do more on ILISP.
I personally apologize with Alain Picard, Thomas Burdick, Adam Warner and
all those who have sent patches or fixes that have not been reviewed or
integrated yet. My kudos to Bill Clementson for his participation to the
> If there is no "standard" process in place for ilisp, I would like to
> propose the following:
> 1. Let's nominate a "gatekeeper" who will be responsible for routing
> patches to registered developers and providing an initial response to
> the patch submitter (official response should be on ilisp-devel so
> people know something is happening with the patch but routing & initial
> comments could be done by email to avoid cluttering ilisp-devel).
> 2. Volunteers will be responsible for specific "types" of reviews (e.g.
> -- I work with ilisp/clisp on Windows - I would be willing to review
> generic ilisp functionality patches, clisp-specific patches or
> windows-specific patches; however, I could not verify cmucl or linux
> 3. Some degree of patch testing will be done by the reviewer (we all
> have day jobs so this may not be very comprehensive; however, at least
> some testing should be done) and the patch (if approved) will be
> submitted to cvs. If the patch is inadequate or addresses something that
> the reviewer thinks is out-of-scope for inclusion, the patch will be
> 4. Notice of the acceptance/rejection of the patch will be posted on
> How does this sound? If there is some alternative procedure, I am quite
This sounds good.
> I would be willing to act as "gatekeeper" and would volunteer to review
> some generic ilisp patches as well as any clisp-specific patches or
> windows-specific patches. Who could review cmucl, LW, acl and linux
> specific patches?
I can deal with CMUCL/SBCL and CLISP under Linux, but not before I have
solved the above mentioned personal problems.
Paolo Amoroso <amoroso@...>