From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6815 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2019 19:13:20 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 6582 invoked by uid 89); 17 Feb 2019 19:13:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,GARBLED_BODY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=impact, contributions, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:13:18 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x1HJ9sRm009922; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:09:55 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id x1HJ9lOB009917; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:09:47 -0600 Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:13:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: =?utf-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= Cc: Joseph Myers , gcc-patches Subject: Re: Make clear, when contributions will be ignored Message-ID: <20190217190944.GI14180@gate.crashing.org> References: <0990b8acd4cc08f74c1bf314851a113711dbfa04.camel@aegee.org> <20190206124401.GO14180@gate.crashing.org> <20190210205616.GJ14180@gate.crashing.org> <120af439a98fc4160e684fca11fc63715e20ca93.camel@aegee.org> <20190211135742.GO14180@gate.crashing.org> <5da63d0daa0f4b086f07d48a5e82240bb9a8f425.camel@aegee.org> <20190211162229.GR14180@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-02/txt/msg01418.txt.bz2 On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 04:59:40PM +0000, Дилян Палаузов wrote: > As a matter of fact patches are not reviewed for whatever reason in reasonable time. Yes. This is an age-old problem. > My point is to reorgnize the approach in such a way, that sending reminders gets irrelevant (has no impact) and > therefore not necessary. > > Currently priority is given to submitters who send reminders, irrespective of the properties a patch has. No, that is not true for many reviewers. It is however true that patches that are *not* pinged (say, once a week) often are forgotten, or the maintainer assumes the patch is not wanted anymore, etc. Segher