From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30929 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2002 14:47:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30917 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2002 14:47:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2002 14:47:01 -0000 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA26289; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 07:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 603BE11414; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:46:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15557.29643.263642.453067@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 07:47:00 -0000 To: "David S. Miller" Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: which patches to review In-Reply-To: <20020422.224035.88562706.davem@redhat.com> References: <20020422.224035.88562706.davem@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00849.txt.bz2 David S. Miller writes: > > [ I deleted this from my inbox by accident so I'm replying > to it by hand... sorry. ] > > Elena Zannoni said: > > could I suggest you post a list of pointers to your pending > patches? > > Ok, but I thought sending emails with "RFA" in the subject to > this list was sufficient to say which patches I want reviewed? > RFA means "request for approval", you can simply scan the GDB > list archives for every posting I made starting with RFA in > the subject, and if nobody has replied to it yet it means its > still pending. You submitted an unusually large number of patches in a very short time. Plus you have committed and reverted some. The status of each patch is not always clear. > > I'm sending in a lot of changes, true. But what really eats me is > that everyone besides me sticks to one of two things in order to > actually get work done with GDB: > > 1) Become maintainer, so you can just post patches to the target > you maintain and you don't need to wait for review before > installation. > > 2) Stick to "obvious" fixes and therefore can just check them in. This is not true. Look through the archives for this mailing list. > > All day long these people get to install their fixes, yet their work > is not necessarily easier to review nor the changes more obviously > correct than mine. Yet I am the one with a 30 patch backlog at this > point farting in my chair waiting for patches to be review before I > can work on new things. 30 patches basically means I maintain 30 > checked out source trees waiting for approval so that I avoid > dependency problems. > In my opinion, people have learned that since there may be only one person responsible to review their patches, it make sense to send only a few at the time. The reviewer's bandwith is limited. > And now I'm being told that I have to periodically post some kind > of "scoreboard" indicating what I want reviewed. > This is not the rule, but since your case is somewhat unusual, I thought this would help the review process. You don't have to comply. > I'm spending all of my time in patch mangement, going above and beyond > what I really should have to do to get fixes installed (especially the > easier ones). That is my main point. Everybody goes through that. > > However, since my goal is to work with people and get the fixes > installed, I will be more mindful in the future of people's schedules > and the time they are able to contribute to GDB patch review. How > does that sound? > Better. > Anyways, back to the original question, the probably highest priority > (read as: one that causes the most dependencies for other changes I > want to submit) is this one: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-04/msg00710.html > > Which by the "multi-arch" rule I though I could install but Andrew > forced me to revert the changes until "sparc developers" (note the > plural) make some commentary. As far as I am aware this means Michael > Snyder, which is just one person :-) Exactly, just one person.