Re: Patch policy

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com>]

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!

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine