From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18062 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2005 15:54:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17882 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2005 15:54:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao03.cox.net) (68.230.240.36) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2005 15:54:42 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050304155438.PYY16861.lakermmtao03.cox.net@white>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:54:38 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1D7F8T-0000jp-00; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:54:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:54:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch review time Message-ID: <20050304155441.GC2419@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20050303150022.GD32613@white> <01c5208c$Blat.v2.4$989a81a0@zahav.net.il> <20050304142600.GA2419@white> <01c520d0$Blat.v2.4$bbe28c40@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c520d0$Blat.v2.4$bbe28c40@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:41:10PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:26:00 -0500 > > From: Bob Rossi > > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:33:25AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:00:22 -0500 > > > > From: Bob Rossi > > > > > > > > I understand that people are busy, which is the very reason my patches > > > > take so long to create. However, from my perspective it simply takes to long, > > > > to get patch reviews done, except of course doco reviews from Eli :). > > > > > > I think I generally review all patches within my responsibility and/or > > > area of expertise with the same speed, not only the doco ones. > > > > I think you are missing the point here Eli. > > No, I'm not: _you_ are. > > All I wanted to say that _my_ review time is short no matter if it's > with documentation or code patches. In other words, I was protesting > against your saying that just my _doco_ patches are fast enough. Eli, what I'm trying to say is that the only thing *I* notice that get's done fast is your doco patches for me. I was certainly not trying to say that you don't do your other patch reviews fast. This complaint of mine is specifically subjective, since I only know what's not being done fast enough for me. So when I say you are "missing the point", what I really mean to say is, my above complaint wasn't about you doing your job well, it's about GDB patch review time, for me, being to slow. Sorry for the confusion. > > Even in that respect, Andrew himself stated, > > > > It's taken us three months to get through files a-c, simple math tells > > us that at that rate we'll finish sometime on '07. I don't think so. > > Please don't start that again. I told you right there and then that > the i18n changes Andrew was referring to were going slow because of > those who made changes, not because of the review process, since my > comments on the i18n-related patches were posted at most a couple of > days after the RFA, and normally just a few hours after the RFA. Then let me ask you a qustion. Why did he not bother to get them reviewed? > > I'm calling for some type of action that will allow me to get some > > real work done on GDB. > > Unfortunately, your changes are outside my authority and pretty much > outside my expertise. Otherwise, they would have been reviewed eons > ago. Well what should I do? Honestly, waiting months for patch review time is unacceptable. It would be helpful if the patches could be reviewed, on average, in just a few days. Thanks, Bob Rossi