RE: Trivial patches on b.g.o covers dust.

[Waldgeist <Waldgeist gmx li>]

> On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 09:41, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> This is meant to help with that, and encourage new patches:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/gnome-22-report.html
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/gnome-23-report.html
>
> If they aren't showing up there (maybe they don't have the PATCH 
> keyword)
> then that's part of the problem.
>
> It really does help to sometimes add a "what's the status of this?" 
> comment
> to bugs/patches that seem to be forgotten. You don't need to be a 
> maintainer
> to help make sense of a bug and maybe drive it towards a decision. The
> bug-squad probably have ideas about this too.

> Thank you very much for your nice email. But I'm wondering how so many
> patches could been overseen ?. Yes I took the time and went through 
> all
> 814 bug entries of Nautilus this morning one by one and came up with
> this list below which are EASY CLOSES.

> They either have valid patches that could easily be applied to 
> Nautilus
> and solve issues for other people on other maches, are bugreports that
> have been solved for long and left open, and whatever.

> I would be thankful if you could take care of them because they are
> really trivial. Many of these patches are there for Months if not 
> longer
> without any feedback, response or whatever. Most of them even have a
> PATCH thing applied to their description. These are really the topmost
> trivial things I found, nothing complicated and nothing that would 
> cause
> serious issues. Here the list. Now I gonna continue with the other
> modules and find really trivial things that could be solved, closed
> within minutes.
>
> important:
> ----------
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94612
>
> Can we please finally decide wether we use Desktop or not ? This is
> going nowhere if we not finally start doing it.
>
> easy closes:
> ------------
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102227
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102657
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102729
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102941
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103348
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104230
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104262
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105949
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105974
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106220
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106227
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107205
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109413
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109530
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110001
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41455
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44725
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45248
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46530
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46947
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47169
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47258
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47340
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47636
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47942
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48137
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48353
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62735
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72212
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74311
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74552
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75212
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75638
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77596
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78884
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79059
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79120
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79213
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79526
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82091
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82516
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83724
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85141
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85784
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87414
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88836
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89202
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89362
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89559
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90928
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90942
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92500
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94574
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95041
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95113
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95119
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96143
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96722
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98306
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98347
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98581
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99502

I really agree with Ali here.. especially Nautilus seems to go on very 
slowly (in important areas), in that case it is very dangerous to 
frighten interested developers away with ignoring their patches by not 
even say something about them.. (especially if the patches would clear 
out issues that were mentioned by many users..)

Greets

Johannes "Waldgeist" Rebhan