From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1811 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2011 01:47:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 1802 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2011 01:47:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (HELO qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.62.96) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 01:47:22 +0000 Received: from omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0RbE1g0030bG4ec59RnMRr; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 01:47:21 +0000 Received: from up.mrs.kithrup.com ([24.4.193.8]) by omta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0RnK1g0120BKwT43PRnLyn; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 01:47:21 +0000 Subject: Re: Unreviewed testsuite patches Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:48:00 -0000 Cc: Rainer Orth , gcc-patches List , Janis Johnson , Arnaud Charlet , Richard Guenther Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0B207BA0-C163-4995-A34A-BEDD229FE88C@comcast.net> References: <44EE7EC2-A9C9-4A76-B47F-7C4B0CE01C3B@comcast.net> To: Gerald Pfeifer X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg01960.txt.bz2 On Jan 26, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Mike Stump wrote: >> So, the question is, do we have a problem? > Yes, we definitely have a problem. Ah, merely asking for people to step forward would be one of the solutions = I'd recommend. Another thing I might recommend would be to appoint the best person who ste= pped forward at the end of 20 days, provided at least 1 person stepped forw= ard. This is more controversial but I don't think badness would result. I= f people thought they could do a better job, they would then be encouraged = to step forward. Also, one could try a slightly different policy, like any= one on the checkin after approval list can review testsuite work. Those th= at possess the skill could then just approve the work, instead of saying, l= ooks good to me, and still have the work twist in the wind. Yet another ap= proach would be review post checkin. The work goes in, and then people rev= iew it and updates are made. Another way would be to pick the top 5 contri= butors in that area and ask them privately if they would like to be reviewe= rs or maintainers, and maybe 2-3 might say yes. Another way might be to de= -formalize the rules. Another way might be to automatically migrate people= into review status after some amount of time, or some amount of contributi= ons. I could probably think up more ways... but I think that's a start, I'd lik= e to think at least one of those might be better than not solving the probl= em.