The whatever we want and we're not telling you

Do what you want, do what you have fun with. Isn't related to "will be committed" in any way.

It tells people to fuck off and go away.

No it doesn't. It says that everybody can do what he wants, and ideally other people
take advantage of it (-> their own source tree) but that committing something to
the official sources is some process that involves a lot of testing, researching, irc
talks, which might or might not lead to committable stuff.
But of course a "hey there's a patch let's put it up" is a quite easy point of view but does
not contribute to the quality and maintainability of dosbox.

But of course a "hey there's a patch let's put it up" is a quite easy point of view but does
not contribute to the quality and maintainability of dosbox.

Yeah, right. Take the Mame example. Mame drivers or patches aren't added so easily to official source, same as dosbox. It's cool to add new (and sometimes fancy) new features but it also create more complex source code, may generate new conflicts, bugs and incompatibilities.
Wd attitude can be misunderstood and his way of aswering may not be the best one in some situations but I share his reasons.

@ih8:I don't quite get why you are making such a big deal out of it. And it surely does not tell anyone to fuck off. Especially when looking at the patches and the responses you find here and on the SF project page. Well, there was a certain patch this week on this forum that mostly got that answer but that was mostly an attitude problem of the "developer". But even that got an answer why the patch won't find its way into CVS. And you get an answer most of the times.

@moderators, maybe its time to split this thread...

Thread split. Original discussion can be found here:

Feature Request: Innovation SSI-2001 Support

It hasn't been argued that patches must be committed. Again; "What I argued for was the courtesy of a response when people ask why, an explanation of how it's decided in more detail than "omnipotence."" It's not the rejection of a patch that's the problem, but no explanation why, and the apparent inconsistency of what's accepted as there's also no explanation of how it's decided.

It's not the rejection of a patch that's the problem, but no explanation why

Uhm wasn't this explained often enough now? There is no general rule.
If something looks interesting it's checked, and if it turns out to be useful
and fits nicely/fixes something important/whatever it's added.
I won't post an elaborate essay of every single code snippet that is around.
Some patches i never looked at because the topic isn't of interest to me or
because i can't handle the covered ideas/am not able to verify it.

If some patch has been looked at in-depth and there are bugs/open questions
that can't be resolved there's interaction with the respective person. I really
don't see where the hell the problem is, and as this topic already annoys me
way too long i won't reply to it any longer.