From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P9CtL-00059N-OE for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:22:25 +0200 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P9Csj-0001fL-GP for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:21:45 +0200 Received: from ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl ([84.80.112.235]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:21:45 +0200 Received: from k.kooi by ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:21:45 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:21:37 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20101022065559.GC3527@jama> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.14) Gecko/20101002 Shredder/3.0.9pre In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.91.229.12 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gcho-openembedded-devel@m.gmane.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: patchwork cleanup call X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:22:26 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 22-10-10 09:32, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > As far as I see it there are two often occurring situations: > > - a patch is submitted for review and gets zero feedback. I have quite > a few of these in patchwork. I once proposed that if a patch does not > get neg feedback in two weeks or so it could be pushed anyway. While > this got some positive response it was never really made a policy. But > I must say I'm becoming more and more inclined to push them anyway. > > - a patch is submitted by someone without commit access but no one > picks up the patch. What I do is ping patches that get zero feedback, people sending patches should do the same. And when I'm travelling I can't post to the ml, so every month there's a working week were I can't give feedback and with my goldfish memory I forget it the week after. And if you're going to push an 'old' unreviewed patch, it's easy enough to ack it on the ml and wait a bit to see if someone suddenly spots a huge bug in the patch. regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFMwUmRMkyGM64RGpERAh7mAJ9ZyDnQo45N01fLgaC87u8umFaxfgCdEmr0 UciwwVyzo9CnkokxRpuehxk= =mbDk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----