Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 08:24 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> As Greg mentions on another thread, not all patches are *intended* to be
>>> production quality by their authors. Many patches are shared for the
>>> purpose of eliciting general feedback. You yourself encourage a group
>>> development approach and specifically punish those people dropping
>>> completely "finished" code into the queue and expecting it to be
>>> committed as-is.
>>>
>
>
>> If you post a patch that is not intended to be of production quality, it
>> is best to mark it so explicitly. Then nobody can point fingers at you.
>> Also, Bruce would then know not to put it in the queue of patches
>> waiting for application.
>>
>
> So it can be forgotten about entirely? Hmmmm.
>
>
I think if you post something marked Work In Progress, there is an
implied commitment on your part to post something complete at a later stage.
So if it's forgotten you would be the one doing the forgetting. ;-)
cheers
andrew