[pacman-dev] PLEASE take my patches. PLEASE.

[Bryan Ischo]

Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Bryan Ischo
>> <bji-keyword-pacman.3644cb at www.ischo.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> I hate to be reduced to begging, but after weeks of no one taking my
>>> patches, this is what I have to do.  I jumped through every hoop I was asked
>>> to jump through to get my patches accepted (and to be honest, there were
>>> ALOT of hoops).  My most recent patches apply to the source code without any
>>> conflicts and address all outstanding issues raised on this list.  Dan McGee
>>> said that if I addressed those issues, he'd take my patches.  Well I did,
>>> weeks ago, and yet, my patches are not in the tree.
>>>
>>> So this is one last attempt on my part to try to get a pacman dev to apply
>>> my patches to the master git tree.  It should be trivially easy - should
>>> take all of a few seconds.
>>>       
>> First, I'm sorry. I have a *heck* of a lot going on in my real life
>> and job right now, and I normally would never want to leave people
>> hanging like this. I've had your patches on my TODO list for a while.
>>
>> "a pacman dev" is me. That is how it has been for a while, and
>> although I'm not as devoted to it as I used to be, I still think I am
>> in the best position to control the master code. Your patches,
>> although having gone through a good review, are still not trivial. If
>> you've noticed, the only patches I've applied in the last month are
>> trivial things or things I've done myself.
>>
>> Yes, just taking your code in and applying it would take a few
>> seconds. But that isn't how it always works- I still need to test
>> them, as I hate pushing broken code out anywhere. A lot of us on this
>> list run pacman from git, and I really don't want to trash their or my
>> computer's database. I'm not saying your patches would do this- but
>> making sure is something I have to do, so blindly patching code isn't
>> something I do.
>>
>> Once again, I'm sorry its taken so long, but I have about 80 things
>> asking for my attention in Arch-land, and I'm just not motivated to do
>> it all right this minute, nor do I have the time.
>>     
>
> For the record, Dan also does some of the administration of our main
> server, and he's spent a chunk of the day tracking down APC bugs :)
>
> If I didn't have ISO releases and repo script things going on right
> now (and I had a second to breathe, heh), I'd take a look at this for
> you.
>
> So... let's see if we can expidite this here...
>
> Dan, Xavier, Nagy: what would help in testing this code? Anything
> Bryan or I could do to make it easier for you all to look at it? I'd
> be willing to do what I can.
> __

Thanks for your responses guys.

Dan: actually it's not that I need my patches to go in right away.  I am 
actually fine with them going in whenever you have time for them.  What 
was bothering me was the fact that other patches had gone in and mine 
hadn't, so I assumed that mine were just being dropped or something.  
Now that you explain how your process works, and that you haven't 
dropped them and do expect to get to them, I feel better.  My biggest 
concern was and is that significant other patches get accepted to the 
tree that break my patches and then require more effort on my part to 
redo them.  But it sounds like you're not going to be taking any 
significant changes, and that mine are in the queue (at the head?) of 
bigger changes to test and integrate.

If it helps, I did add test cases to the pactest stuff to test new 
aspects of the behavior of pacman with my changes.  Those tests are in 
the patches I posted.  Additionally, all of the existing pactest tests 
also pass with my changes, although it is true that I had to slightly 
modify a few of them (because pacman now returns a success code in some 
cases where it used to return an error, due to the fact that the user is 
now prompted to ask what they want to do, and it's not considered an 
error if they decide to abort the transaction early in some cases).  So 
I think there is reasonably good test coverage there also.

I'll just continue to be patient and assume that my patches will go in 
when there are more cycles available for testing my changes.  Of course 
I would be willing to do everything I can to facilitate this process, 
but I am not sure what else I could do that I haven't already done.  
Still, if there's anything you think of, just let me know.

Thanks!
Bryan