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.
cheers
andrew
