[PATCH 4/*] Generic string memchr and strnlen

[Ondřej Bílka]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 04:58:20PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:47:46PM +0100, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > > > Ondřej Bílka wrote: 
> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:07:35PM +0100, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > > > > > Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:42:47PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > > > > > On 07/27/2015 12:56 PM, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Then could you review a generic patch that I am about to ping?
> > > 
> > > Do you mean https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-08/msg00443.html?
> > > I don't see a patch attached...
> > >
> > I wrote it long ago, here:
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-10/msg00201.html 
> 
> If a patch was posted so long ago that it isn't in patchwork, it 
> effectively doesn't exist for reviewers.  That means anything before 
> 2014-03-14 (the oldest entry in patchwork).
> 
> It's *also* the case that we have too many unreviewed patches in patchwork 
> and not enough reviewers; I don't have any good solutions to that issue.
>
Yes, its mainly that I ping patches that I think important so number of
patches that work but I don't ping because there is something more
important increases. 
 
> It's *also* the case that any frequent contributors should be cleaning up 
> their own patch state in patchwork so that superseded and committed 
> patches are marked as such and reviewers can more readily find the most 
> recent version of a patch.  You have a particularly large number of 
> patches shown there including what look like many successive variants of 
> the same patch.  As the submitter you're best placed to know which patches 
> have been completely superseded / committed; please clean up the entries 
> for your patches so that exactly one entry shows for the most recent 
> version of each patch that has not been superseded / committed / rejected, 
> and no entries show for superseded / committed rejected patch because they 
> have been marked as such.
> 
I do that semiregularly but didn't have time recently.