From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19358 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2013 09:38:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 19250 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2013 09:38:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:38:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1Q9cYLT020816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:38:34 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-19.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.19]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1Q9cUtc011073 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:38:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:38:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] gdb/CONTRIBUTE update Message-ID: <20130226093829.GA5802@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20130221202629.GA30015@host2.jankratochvil.net> <512C80DA.5070600@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <512C80DA.5070600@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00646.txt.bz2 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