From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31968 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2005 22:17:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31753 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2005 22:16:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2005 22:16:58 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050304221654.ZVQC11124.lakermmtao04.cox.net@white>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:16:54 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1D7L6P-0000sG-00; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 17:16:57 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:17:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch review time Message-ID: <20050304221656.GD2419@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20050303150022.GD32613@white> <01c5208c$Blat.v2.4$989a81a0@zahav.net.il> <20050304142600.GA2419@white> <01c520d0$Blat.v2.4$bbe28c40@zahav.net.il> <20050304155441.GC2419@white> <01c520e0$Blat.v2.4$f07527a0@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c520e0$Blat.v2.4$f07527a0@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 07:37:10PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:54:41 -0500 > > From: Bob Rossi > > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > > > Please don't start that again. I told you right there and then that > > > the i18n changes Andrew was referring to were going slow because of > > > those who made changes, not because of the review process, since my > > > comments on the i18n-related patches were posted at most a couple of > > > days after the RFA, and normally just a few hours after the RFA. > > > > Then let me ask you a qustion. Why did he not bother to get them > > reviewed? > > I asked Andrew this question, but didn't get any useful answers. The only possible solution I could come to, was that he thought patch review would slow him down to the point were he wouldn't be able to get work done. Even though you think this isn't the problem, it's the only conclusion I can draw from his statement. I guess it will be a mystery, unless of course, he decides to tell us. > > Well what should I do? > > The only thing to do is to bug the responsible maintainer(s). What if the particular maintainer is busy? Am I just out of luck? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me, does it to you? There must be some other action I can take ... Thanks, Bob Rossi