Re: Make clear, when contributions will be ignored

["Дилян Палаузов" <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>]

Hello,

thanks to Serger and Joseph for the feedback.

Acting primary upon reminders is a general phenomenon in the society, nothing specific to software teams.  Think on
public administration: it acts sometimes much more collaboratively, if a public/private/famous media reports on the
workflows of the public administration.  Public administration also reacts sometimes only, if reminders are sent.

Not surprizing is, that talking with a public administration, about their policy on acting only after receiving a
reminder, leads to nowhere, as making progress on this discussion with such an administration, needs a lot of reminders.
In summary, such public administrations insist on their right to receive reminders before acting.

Do you share the opinion, that whatever can be done after receiving a reminder, can be arranged also without reminder? 
If yes, how do you propose to proceed, so that a no-reminders-are-necessary-state is reached?

I read in the answer of Segher, that the purpose of reminding is not only to ping, but also to filter the ones who are
pernetrant and sending manually reminders is the means to verify, that the persons really want to make progress.  It was
certainly not intentionally meant this way, but this is a possible reading.

Let me repeat, that the topic is not anyhow GCC specific, nor do I offend the society anyhow.  To make things better,
first the causes for the current state have to be understood.

Raising the topic on GNU Tools Cauldron is a very good idea, but it likely approaches less people than on this mailing
list, I am not that much inside the GCC processes and I do not know, whether I can visit the next meeting.

Regards
  Дилян

On Wed, 2019-02-06 at 06:44 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:55:11AM +0000, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
> > will it help, if Bugzilla is reprogrammed to send automatically weekly
> > reminders on all patches, that are not integrated yet?
> 
> No, that will not help.
> 
> If an interested party sends a friendly ping, that is of course welcome.
> But automated pings are spam: unwanted bulk mail.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> You can cc: both sides of the discussion.  Either also gdb-patches, or also
> whoever told you to send it to GCC instead, or both.  And include a link to
> the mailing list archive of your thread on gdb-patches in your mail to
> gcc-patches, so that all parties can see the relevant context.  Make it
> easy for people to help you!
> 
> 
> Segher