This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: a suggestion about patch "ping"-s
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:54:39 +0000
- Subject: Re: a suggestion about patch "ping"-s
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160101112418 dot GC12734 at adacore dot com>
On 01/01/2016 11:24 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> The real suggestion I would like to make, when sending a ping, is
> that people reply to the original email, with the patch being quoted
> in the reply, rather than sending a completely separate email
> with URLs to the patches. The latter may sound like a good idea,
> since it allows to send a nice and compact email. But what it
> does is also make the ping itself a new email thread, unrelated to
> the emailing submitting the patch. As a result, there are two email
> threads where a review can happen.
>
> For instance, one maintainer could see the ping first, and therefore
> send a review by finding and then replying to the original thread.
> But then, a second reviewer might not notice the review, and therefore
> review again.
>
> Another example happened to me, today. I try to keep gdb-patches
> emails in a mailbox until I either review them, or see someone else
> do the review. Then comes a new email, un-connected to the original
> email, with URLs of 3 patches. I had to do a little bit of research
> to figure out whether they had already been reviewed or not.
This "separate mail with url" seems to be somewhat standard practice on
the gcc-patches@ list, and it's always puzzled me. I too find it highly
confusing.
+1 on all you said.
I've added this to:
https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist#Ping_and_keep_pinging
Thanks,
Pedro Alves