From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31233 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2004 21:15:40 -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 31206 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2004 21:15:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2004 21:15:39 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id B3A1BC60F; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:15:37 -0800 (PST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdbheads@gnu.org Subject: Re: Feb's patch resolution rate References: <20040225040059.GB19094@white> <16456.65451.461753.66554@localhost.redhat.com> <20040306155700.GA9439@white> <20040311132508.GA2504@white> <20040323130900.GA17339@white> <4060A523.6010801@gnu.org> From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:15:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4060A523.6010801@gnu.org> (Andrew Cagney's message of "Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:59:15 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00534.txt.bz2 On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:59:15 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: > To this end, I've attached a breakdown of February's patches that > required approval (i.e., I excluded self approved patches). Looking > at the numbers: > - ~60 patches > - typical (median) review time is 1 day > - average review time is ~2.5 days I assume these only count the resolved patches? Because: > - pinging helps (80% of pings got resolved) > - ~12% of patches are unresolved (pinged 25%, unpinged 75%) If 12% of patches have been unresolved, then those alone should be contributing about 3 days to the average review time. Another question to ask is: how would allowing global maintainers to approve patches have improved the situation? Just looking at unreviewed patches, we see: > 2004-02-24 -file-list-exec-source-files, Bob Rossi I don't know if this would have been approved by now; hard to say. > 2004-02-24 [patch/rfa] Delete jmisc2.exp, Andrew Cagney > 2004-02-24 [patch/rfa] Test java's "break main", Andrew Cagney > 2004-02-09 [rfa/testsuite/lib] get_compiler_info: two improvements, Michael Elizabeth Chastain These are all in areas of the testsuite without active maintainers, where we nonetheless allow those inactive maintainers to block approval. These all would have gotten quickly approved otherwise. > 2004-02-24 [RFA/testsuite] Add testcase for included files, Joel Brobecker > 2004-02-24 [RFA/dwarf-2] Add support for included files, Joel Brobecker I don't know enough about this to know how quickly it would have been approved. > 2004-02-16 [rfa] Remove add_psymbol_with_dem_name_to_list and uses, Daniel Jacobowitz I assume Daniel would have approved it himself by now. > 2004-02-24 p [rfa] fix for PR c++/1553, David Carlton An extended version of this patch actually did get approved recently; Daniel, however, favorably commented on the original patch very soon after it was submitted, so I'm sure it would have gone in much more quickly if he had been able to approve it. Corinna has also been waiting for some time for approval for a patch to minsysms.c (maybe it was from the beginning of March, instead of February, though); there, too, Daniel quickly commented on the patch, but he can't approve it. So, based on this data, it seems to me that allowing global maintainers to approve patches in all areas of GDB would have made a significant impact on patch approval time - at least half of the patches that have been waiting the longest for approval would have gotten approved much more quickly. Admittedly, the sample is somewhat skewed: there aren't normally so many patches to dead areas of the testsuite. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com