Re: [patch] gdb/CONTRIBUTE update

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:31:06 +0100, Yao Qi wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 04:26 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> >+	Patch from a contributor needs a review with approval from
> >+	maintainer.  Still you drive the review process and inclusion
> >+	process of the patch.  If there is no reply in a week send a new
> >+	mail (not reply) with PING in its subject.  Occasionally even
> >+	a PING^2  mail may be needed in another week of no replise.
> >+
> 
> Jan,
> why do we have to post the patch again in the new mail instead of a
> reply to remind maintainers to review?  If the patch is still
> applied clearly, I don't see the benefits of doing that.

With a reply mail users (reviewers) which use sorting of mail folder by
threads (in Mutt 'o' 't') get the PING mail put under the original mail which
is far in the past and the PING mail gets hidden+forgotten again due to it.

This even is not an idea of mine, it was concluded on some GNU Tools Cauldron.

I do not speak here whether the patch itself should be included in the PING
mail again or not, I do not find that important and it is also not expressed
explicitly in the proposed paragraph above.


Thanks,
Jan