From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5d375e920703212219x24f97f29gbdfc1745eb9de405@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 06:19:15 +0100
From: Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] factotum/802.1x catch 22?
In-Reply-To: <9321241f7154cd4cd7fab6579c8916b0@proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200703212303.l2LN3Vl25960@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
	<9321241f7154cd4cd7fab6579c8916b0@proxima.alt.za>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2d397c24-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> *** Off Topic ***
>
> I had a brief chat with "patch" and it strikes me now that the delay
> in accepting complex patches might be alleviated if such patches could
> be reviewed by 9fans, that is to say, publicly, by request.  Say, for
> example, that we are asked to comment on Axel's patch and we return a
> verdict, as part of the "patch" process.  No need to publish the
> request, those interested can look on sources and post the result
> there.

That was precisely the purpose of my original patch notification
system, which russ didn't like and forced me to shut down.

I proposed doing a similar thing in the plan9-changes list for whoever
wanted to participate, but russ didn't like that either.

If you like I can open up plan9-changes (I'm not sure, but I suspect
it doesn't track new patches anymore, but that could be easily
changed), or we could create a new plan9-patches where only new
patches are posted (patches would get posted to plan9-changes when
they are accepted or rejected.)

In any case, without the collaboration of whoever sits at the other
end of patch(1), the whole exercise is pointless.

uriel