From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 313 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2002 05:49:47 -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 32755 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2002 05:49:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pizda.ninka.net) (216.101.162.242) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2002 05:49:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12629 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:40:35 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:49:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20020422.224035.88562706.davem@redhat.com> To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: which patches to review From: "David S. Miller" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00827.txt.bz2 [ 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. 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. 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. And now I'm being told that I have to periodically post some kind of "scoreboard" indicating what I want reviewed. 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. 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? 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 :-)