From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21509 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2013 11:16:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 21498 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2013 11:16:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,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 11:16:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1QBGfLw030728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:16:41 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1QBGdOk002597; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:16:40 -0500 Message-ID: <512C9996.6000007@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:16:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] gdb/CONTRIBUTE update References: <20130221202629.GA30015@host2.jankratochvil.net> <512C80DA.5070600@codesourcery.com> <20130226093829.GA5802@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20130226093829.GA5802@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00648.txt.bz2 On 02/26/2013 09:38 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > 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. Do you like it? I don't. Interesting. I had seen some pings like that on the gcc list, but I never understood why people preferred them that way. One consequence of that model I've often seen in the gcc list (and even there only a few people tend to ping that way) is occasionally we see the reviewer OKing in reply to the ping email, instead of replying to the original submission, which obviously happens because it was quicker to the reviewer to just hit reply to the ping, read the patch in the browser (following the url), and hit send. I don't like this because it makes archaeology harder, and, people who are tracking the original thread may not notice the patch had been approved or further discussion had happened on another thread. If someone is pinging me, I prefer a reply to the original thread. I'm currently using Thunderbird, and it sorts threads by most recent reply, not by original post date (which I find a more sensible default - why would one want to sort by original post date by default?). A separate email with an url means more work for me, as I then have to go look up the thread in Thunderbird that corresponds to that url, instead of having it already handy (as when the ping is in the same thread, and thus displayed as a child of the original patch). That's just a silly indirection out of email to then reply back through email. It's a little more work for the pinger as well, who has to look up an url to put in the email. -- Pedro Alves