From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5143858412 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:04:12 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BB5143858412 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1664888652; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=Cmp2KSFGWMtbxNSaLS11MZ4Ri/7mXXlMWwqszjD6ZPM=; b=AcJBBfuHbuY/4YGHdJMRhV9VDgXSpXbNs5xUCFAcAseciY8ZWYWYfIFMrnW0mbgHzeAJE+ WlNKpr6Lc5JdSZ+cX/jSdqPfx0fmzo/2NY56jEaqQm1vPmJnBWz/SD9pmWkWIoyHcsfmXq xOOoHgGIW2p2MMobrPWdKuGYVLcloIE= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-575--24bwwa4OW-j5jtUsfP9Qg-1; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 09:04:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: -24bwwa4OW-j5jtUsfP9Qg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A16EE299E765; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.194]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55D5C17595; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 294D45Ka3990997 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 Oct 2022 15:04:06 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 294D44jX3990996; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 15:04:04 +0200 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 15:04:04 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: David Malcolm Cc: Philip Herron , gcc Mailing List , gcc-rust@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Rust front-end Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <39865089adafe93d92571e6768bb911f9bc292a6.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <39865089adafe93d92571e6768bb911f9bc292a6.camel@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 08:42:58AM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > On Tue, 2022-10-04 at 13:29 +0100, Philip Herron wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > As the cut-off for merging is coming up in November, quite a few of > > our patches have not been reviewed yet. > > > > There are a few main issues that have been raised so far, and we are > > fixing those at the moment in preparation for version 3 of the > > patches. Is there anything else we can do to make reviewing the rest > > of the patches easier? > > Do you have a list of which patches need reviewing? > e.g. perhaps a page showing: > - which patches are waiting for a reviewer, as opposed to > - which patches are already approved > - which patches have issues identified in review > - ...where no-one is yet working on addressing them > - ...where someone is working on addressing them > etc > > to make it clearer what the next action is for each patch, and who is > meant to be taking it. > > (within Red Hat, we used to call this "who has the ball?") Yeah, our policy in https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html states that "Pinging patches, Getting patches applied If you do not receive a response to a patch that you have submitted within two weeks or so, it may be a good idea to chase it by sending a follow-up e-mail to the same list(s). Patches can occasionally fall through the cracks. Please be sure to include a brief summary of the patch and the URL of the entry in the mailing list archive of the original submission." If some patches have been already reviewed, others partly, others in the works and others need review, sending a mail with those details so that it is easy to find out what is still pending is appreciated even more. Jakub