How I Patch Piloted lately and some tricks about merge proposals

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Martin Pool writes:

 >  * patch is just so wrong that there is no real value in it

There is no such thing.  Any patch is a *strong* signal of interest by
a potential contributor (I may be projecting since I post a lot but
haven't submitted any code yet :-).

That's not really the patch pilot's problem, and the patch should be
rejected.  But if you're serious about recruiting contributors,
*somebody* should be following up with such folks to (a) keep them in
the fold and (b) hopefully improve the quality of future submissions.

 > One interesting case is where someone has posted a patch that
 > reproduces the failure.  Arguably we should turn this into an xfail
 > test.  However I think that's not worthwhile unless we're then going
 > to actually fix the bug.

If it's a bug, and you're definitely not going to fix it, turn the
issue into a bug and label it *wontfix*.  If you might fix it, you
should add the test.  Doing otherwise looks like you're sweeping it
under the rug.