This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

a suggestion about patch "ping"-s


First of all, please continue to ping the GDB maintainers when
patches go unreviewed. We try to do our best, but as a volunteer-based
project, lots of patches unfortunately wait a bit before review.
As a reminder, the generally accepted ping frequency is 2 weeks after
first submission, and every week thereafter. Some have even accepted
the first ping after a week.

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.

IMO, just replying to the original email with "PING" clearly shown
in the subject's reply will help us save a bit of time, and we can
then in turn invest that time is reviewing more submissions.

Thank you!

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]