From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: gnu-patches back log Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 01:16:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20170301061625.GA11982@jasmine> References: <87inof5w20.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20170226111029.GA19050@mail.thebird.nl> <87poi4rd1m.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20170228062531.GA647@mail.thebird.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37323) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cixYu-0000Ui-UW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:16:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cixYr-0003e7-P2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:16:32 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:60109) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cixYr-0003dz-6y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:16:29 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170228062531.GA647@mail.thebird.nl> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Pjotr Prins Cc: guix-devel On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 06:25:31AM +0000, Pjotr Prins wrote: > Now we have debbugs we can see there is a building back-log: > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?package=guix-patches;max-bugs=100;base-order=1;bug-rev=1 > > A patch like this one > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25725 > > has been two weeks without comment. I think we should not leave patches without > feedback longer than one week - even 3 days, to be honest. It is the surest way > to kill enthusiasm. > > To move forward with Guix and to recognise the effort new submitters > put in I would like to ask *all* reviewers to pick an outstanding > patch on a regular basis. If reviewers split the work it should be doable. We all know that patch review is important. But it's also real work, and just as hard as writing patches in many cases. I think we all do it when we find the motivation. > Would it be an idea to send out weekly E-mails with patches that had > no attention to a select list of reviewers? Or maybe to the ML as a > whole? Basically it would read: As long as the list of reviewers volunteered for that. We already get the messages with the patches. I wonder if adding yet another message to our mail boxes is going to help. At least for me, the issue is finding the energy to review things, not tools for finding old patches. If we are interested in handling submissions more quickly, we could arrange for package-related changes to be linted and built before they get sent to the list subscribers. Spending time on a patch series before learning that the submitter did not even test it reduces my motivation to review.