From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10029 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2018 08:03:38 -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 9994 invoked by uid 89); 21 Dec 2018 08:03:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?No, score=3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,GARBLED_BODY,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=organizations, weekly, 27th, =d0=b8=d0=bb=d1?= X-HELO: mail.aegee.org Received: from mail.aegee.org (HELO mail.aegee.org) (144.76.142.78) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:03:35 +0000 Authentication-Results: mail.aegee.org/wBL83WeH004365; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=didopalauzov DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=aegee.org; s=k4096; t=1545379413; i=dkim+MSA-tls@aegee.org; r=y; bh=d2DuE+UWQbE3Ys73vlmnam0lVvmO8XTWyCEyvGWb3ik=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=qCtpv6+TDwjcs1s7JUmwiT3OJvH0SRz5AFasx49Ji1bxhWnkzzBYEOK6/AZ7TFHdL IAravJfqTvDUlqYpHouCakPhpe2Z9HpXigIIO1Vgv85UmVx3HUlUWpRePRQJBcvEaI BWzm/HZbk8oOXoTmWVFen797VppP8lk0luga3bO66k6/I+TDD8ZKfWAS5Xztmk4R3R Qa8uD3/AIdgk2tWpLgHu9KofBBxNNtP+GlJXgY0aK5YHkj5XvEHkZjS/lMAHXYXN6q whlAyUQjoOdfep+6e7jfUdo02AqC8+GqVWy9pCdOOfay4kLyjwqAGf/Ckm850gphXu Sb2U7RtqG0GzHfEF6xVXpW2TyilJPbV1ppq72aMXaiajWoafQjDLHaCMYlQt3NFUx9 6Mmvyn34rGmn3qhzNQupd1kLwCW/oZrIVEIz5HhSyaaAGbE1xNNB2h07EDHZr2i4YZ R4qcJAFv7C4lB4e/oqZKcqocGGxYq/wSnS4zrCRw/7p6aH13KobB/dbkUoyyve3zkn 1cKjfqgZ9yYc5OYBWAvumnQ+pZ5newZvo0xnelUWHqpiGLwCcH1bNuT3VZXOA9UNp5 j86ByoYuQyA+nHii07VyLmQ8c9kklgkzOxOEwpOK00cmjbSBfO88/8X979Sa67AhAb D/tZiTggeD0+9auORhBplTNw= Authentication-Results: mail.aegee.org/wBL83WeH004365; dkim=none Received: from Tylan (HSI-KBW-046-005-016-084.hsi8.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [46.5.16.84]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.aegee.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBL83WeH004365 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:03:32 GMT Message-ID: <79ca724ca30d0087b46037201e771029011b3b21.camel@aegee.org> Subject: +reminder+ Re: Make clear, when contributions will be ignored From: =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=94=D0=B8=D0=BB=D1=8F=D0=BD_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=9F=D0=B0=D0=BB=D0=B0=D1=83=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2?= To: gcc-patches Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:08:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <0990b8acd4cc08f74c1bf314851a113711dbfa04.camel@aegee.org> References: <25a0e5620b1e8a7a831ae9660c988f5dd98aa7dd.camel@aegee.org> <20181205171121.GQ3803@gate.crashing.org> <0990b8acd4cc08f74c1bf314851a113711dbfa04.camel@aegee.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.31.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg01534.txt.bz2 Hello, what shall happen, so that no reminders are necessary to move things forward? Why does sending a reminder make a difference and are only penetrant persons blessed? Regards Дилян On Fri, 2018-12-07 at 10:55 +0000, Дилян Палаузов wrote: > Hello, > > will it help, if Bugzilla is reprogrammed to send automatically weekly > reminders on all patches, that are not integrated yet? > > Will lt help, if I hire myself to integrate the patch, or shall I > rather hire somebody to send reminders? > > If something can be done after sending a reminder, then it can be > arranged also without reminders. In particular, dealing with reminders > is avoidable extra work. > > Whether people are paid or not, does not change on the subject very > much. I have experienced organizations, where people are not paid and > they manage to tackle everything. I have seen organizations where > people are paid and they do not get the management right. > > I am not speaking about having some strict time to get a response, but > rather to ensure an answer in reasonable time. No answer in reasonable > time is the same as ignorance — the subject of this thread. > > The patch I proposed on 27th Oct was first submitted towards GDB and > then I was told to send it to GCC. Here I was told to sent it to GDB. > What shall happen to quit the loop? > > In any case, if the common aim is to have a system where contributions > do not get lost, then I’m sure the workflows can be adjusted to achieve > this aim. > > Regards > Дилян > > > On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 17:37 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > > Patches are usually ignored because everyone thinks someone else will > > > handle it. > > > > And in this case, it looks like this patch would best be reviewed first in > > the GDB context - then once committed to binutils-gdb, the committer could > > post to gcc-patches (CC:ing build system maintainers) requesting a commit > > to GCC if they don't have write access to GCC themselves. I consider > > synchronizing changes to such top-level files in either direction to be > > obvious and not to need a separate review. > >