Re: Correct procedure for patch review?

Martin Duerst wrote:
> I think you have done the right thing by sending patches to this list.
> 
> When sending a request such as this one, it helps a lot to include
> information about your original mail, including a pointer to the
> archived email. Also, assuming that you meant "PATCH: mknod and
> mkfifo support", that was sent less than 2 days ago, and these two
> days partially overlap with the weekend (in particular in Japan).
> Everybody is busy, so I think it is better to wait a bit longer
> (e.g. one week).
> 
> Compared with other open-source (programming language) development
> communities, Ruby uses a distinctively low-key approach to bug and
> patch management. There is some talk about trying to use a bug tracking
> system, but it is unclear if and when that will happen.
> 
> Some people may disagree, but in my opinion, Ruby's low-key approach
> is a big advantage. It fits very well with the friendly Ruby culture.
> 
> A more complicated system doesn't guarantee that bugs actually get
> fixed and patches applied. But it splits the location of discussion
> (mailing list vs. bug tracking system), and increases adminitstrative
> overhead. Also, it is very well known (and I can confirm this from
> experience) that once some additional procedure is introduced, it is
> extremely difficult to get rid of it again, even if experience shows
> that it isn't really necessary.
> 
> Regards,   Martin.

Alright, thanks for the explanation. This clears things up a lot. :)

FYI, I was referring to the "PATCH: mknod and mkfifo support" and 
"Improved documentation for mkmf" emails.