From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: gnu-patches back log Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 17:14:53 +0100 Message-ID: <874lz6qt4y.fsf@gnu.org> 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=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51225) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckvHo-0007Ta-U1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:15:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckvHk-0006g8-9M for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:15:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20170228062531.GA647@mail.thebird.nl> (Pjotr Prins's message of "Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:25:31 +0000") 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 Hi Pjotr! Pjotr Prins skribis: > Now we have debbugs we can see there is a building back-log: > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?package=3Dguix-patches;max-bu= gs=3D100;base-order=3D1;bug-rev=3D1 > > A patch like this one > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D25725 > > has been two weeks without comment. I think we should not leave patches w= ithout > feedback longer than one week - even 3 days, to be honest. It is the sure= st way > to kill enthusiasm. I=E2=80=99ll echo what others wrote: we don=E2=80=99t want to put more pres= sure on those who do that review work. The last thing I=E2=80=99d want is someone burnin= g out because of that; it=E2=80=99s already hard enough, believe me. However, we should try hard to balance the review workload more evenly among the 30 committers. I=E2=80=99m not sure how to incentivize that, tho= ugh; some projects add Reviewed-by tags and then publish stats; would that help? A reviewer=E2=80=99s hall of a fame? :-) And of course, we should have more committers. > 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: Personally I would not use that, but if others want it, we should set it up! Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.