"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "Jarl" == Jarl Friis
<jarl(a)diku.dk> writes:
Jarl> As a first-time patcher I hope it's acceptable with my
Jarl> newbieness behaviour. I probably shouldn't cross-post a
Jarl> patch (but only to patches)
Don't worry about it. XEmacs is in your debt for your efforts, not
the other way around. Thanks for your patches! :-)
If you intend a patch for _application_ to the sources as is, _always_
post it to xemacs-patches, even if there are minor points you are
asking for discussion about. Not doing so will resulting in patches
getting "lost". If you expect that the patch will not be acceptable,
but are using it to stimulate discussion, then don't post to
xemacs-patches. Intermediate cases are up to your judgement; unless
you're sure you'll followup with a "real" patch, better to err on the
side of posting to xemacs-patches.
Discussion of the _content_ of the patch (ie responses to reviewer
comments beyond "that's right, ok, I'll do it your way") should
_always_
be posted to xemacs-beta. (We may split xemacs-beta into code
discussion and stuff that is more relevant to non-developer testers at
some point, but at this point xemacs-beta is the correct place for
this.)
These rules will result in a fair number of cross posts, but we don't
yet have a better way to handle that.
Note: Developers should never post to xemacs-patches unless there is a
patch in the post. We plan to enforce this with an automatic filter.
The exceptions are administrative. If you have commit authorization,
then post a short COMMIT notice to xemacs-patches when you commit to
CVS. Menbers of the Review Board will also post short notices of
administrative action (APPROVE, VETO, QUERY, etc) to xemacs-patches.
Thank you very much Stephen, I really found the information useful. My
next patch may eventually be to include some of your
explanation/distinction of xemacs-beta vs. xemacs-patches into the text
found when hitting M-x describe-beta, hope you don't mind that ;-)
Jarl