On 24 October, 2016 - Colin Leroy wrote: > On 24 October 2016 at 20h58, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > Hi, > > > It would be great to have more people reviewing patches, but I don't > > know how to acquire those people. I don't think the reviews have to > > necessarily be done by someone with a title of "maintainer", but on > > the other hand, giving much trust to drive-by contributors seems risky > > too... > > Reviewing is hard when you don't have an extensive knowledge of the > codebase... I'd propose to do it, but I'd suck at it - "yeah, seems > fine to me" :D > I think we can file the raop2 code under a quite special category. It doesn't have a big inpact outside of the raop2 code, and those bits are quite trivial to review. I just read them my self and they looked ok to me =) On the other hand, the raop2 code itself is quit the opposite. It requires understanding of raop2 and pa. Here comes the point: The current raop2 code is pretty much unusable. There are probably very few who have such old devices that they work with that code, and the changes only affects raop2 users. I'd love to see the code merged, and even with the module-raop-discover module disabled by default. That way this change only affects users who really wants and uses this feature, and probably need this code to get their gear working. So my suggestion is to take a look at the non-raop2 patches so the maintainers are happy with those, and merge the lot. //Anton -- Anton Lundin +46702-161604
