From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13641 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 15:06:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13538 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 15:06:44 -0000 Subject: Re: Patch policy From: Gary Thomas To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: eCos Maintainers In-Reply-To: <3EB7CE1C.2000300@eCosCentric.com> References: <1052225944.30126.4370.camel@hermes> <3EB7CE1C.2000300@eCosCentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: MLB Associates Message-Id: <1052233597.30126.4818.camel@hermes> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 15:06:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 09:00, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > Gary Thomas wrote: > > ** Disclaimer: I'm sure that I'm as guilty as anyone > > > > There seems to be a gap [i.e. failing] in the response to > > patches from outsiders. Sometimes they are handled quite > > quickly, sometimes never. I think we need to establish > > some policies on how to handle these efficiently. > > The problem is setting time aside for the large ones. It can take a few > hours to thoroughly review a large contrib like, say, the new openRISC > port, even when there are few problems. > > If it's any consolation, after 2.0 it's one of my priorities to deal with > the patch backlog... it's _somewhat_ been put on hold as "net time" for > now would be better put into 2.0, and FYI we're playing with some release > candidates here on various hosts so we're getting pretty close on that. > > I know it's eCosCentric's view that a proportion of my time will become > dedicated to net stuff primarily for things like patches. > > > At the very least, we should try and assign a patch to > > a maintainer within some short period of time and then it's > > that person's responsibility to take care of it - whatever > > the outcome. As is, I see things come in that I'm comfortable > > with that sometimes I take up, sometimes I leave by. In the > > latter case, I simply assume that someone else will handle > > it. I think this is the failing. > > FWIW I've been assuming the final buck passes to me, so unless anyone else > volunteers it's my problem. I do have every unapplied patch sitting here > (just in a big pile, but still), but I do have the ability to go back and > do it. And I still intend to, despite the age of some of the patches now! Fair enough - I just wanted to see what we can do to formalize this. I'm more than glad to work on some of these patches, but what I see right now is that sometimes things get stalled - or at least seem to. I would not want for everything to fall on your shoulders, certainly if it makes sense to share the load :-) Whatever we can do to improve this, especially in the punter's eyes, will be a good thing. I'm looking at Savannah now, just for my own edification. -- Gary Thomas MLB Associates