From: Clementson, Bill <Bill_C<lementson@jd...> - 2003-06-28 19:36:36
From: Paolo Amoroso on Saturday, June 28, 2003 5:37 AM
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:15:35 -0600, Bill Clementson wrote:
> > patches been incorporated into cvs. Since I'm a relatively new=20
> > participant to open source projects, could someone tell me what the=20
> > "standard" process is for incorporating patches from=20
> programmers who=20
> > aren't registered as project developers? One of the advantages
> The current process for ILISP is an informal one. Patches are=20
> mostly sent to one of our mailing lists, and they are dealt=20
> 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=20
> a work/other stuff "busy loop" from which I haven't been able=20
> to escape yet. I hope to be able to--really--clear things in=20
> a few weeks, and do more on ILISP.
Great to hear that!
> I personally apologize with Alain Picard, Thomas Burdick,=20
> Adam Warner and all those who have sent patches or fixes that=20
> have not been reviewed or integrated yet. My kudos to Bill=20
> Clementson for his participation to the project.
I just wanted to make certain that we did have some recognized process
in place for incorporating fixes. I know it is easy to lose peoples
interest if they don't get a response when they submit a patch.
> I can deal with CMUCL/SBCL and CLISP under Linux, but not=20
> before I have solved the above mentioned personal problems.
Sounds good to me. I'll try to handle any clisp/windows patches. Is
there anyone who uses ilisp with either acl or lw that can verify those
From: Clementson, Bill <Bill_C<lementson@jd...> - 2003-07-01 19:03:46
Thanks for the suggestion and the offer to use Cliki to keep track of
outstanding patches. However, Sourceforge already has a built-in
mechanism for recording Bugs, Support Requests, Patches and Feature
Requests and it would probably make more sense to utilize the
Sourceforge pages to keep track of fixes and enhancement requests. This
isn't being done (at least not consistently). Maybe that's ok since
ilisp is pretty stable; however, as you note in your message, it would
be easier to keep track of issues/patches/requests if they were recorded
in a more rigorous manner. (Note: this is not meant to criticize anyone,
especially not Paolo since I think he does a terrific job.) I think we
need to think about when and how entering additional information into
the standard Sourceforge tracking system makes sense and when it just
represents "busy work" for people.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Barlow [mailto:dan@...]=20
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:50 AM
> To: ilisp-devel@...
> Subject: Re: [Ilisp-devel] Process for integrating outside=20
> patches into ilisp
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Paolo Amoroso <amoroso@...> writes:
> > The current process for ILISP is an informal one. Patches=20
> are mostly=20
> > sent to one of our mailing lists, and they are dealt with=20
> by whoever,=20
> > among the maintainers, has some time to do it.
> If you think it would help in any way to use the CLiki ilisp=20
> page to keep a list of pointers to outstanding patches,=20
> please feel free. It might be easier to keep a list of=20
> pointers into the mailing list archives there than it would=20
> be to browse through geocrawler or gmane every time.
> - -dan