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 1P9EgP-0003FT-0b for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:17:14 +0200 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P9Efk-0000RK-NA for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:16:28 +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 12:16:28 +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 12:16:28 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:16:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20101022065559.GC3527@jama> <20101022084301.GD3527@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 10:17:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 22-10-10 11:15, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > 2010/10/22 Martin Jansa : >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 09:32:19AM +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: >>> Nice ideas, but.... >>> >>> 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. >> >> Maybe it's not written as policy but as koen said, send ping and if >> still no reply then probably nobody cares it being pushed (so you can >> push it). >> >>> - a patch is submitted by someone without commit access but no one >>> picks up the patch. >> >> ping stating that author has not commit access would be nice >> >>> In either case if patches just get archived without being looked at, >>> it'll probably have an adverse effects. >> >> Agreed >> >>> But we of course still have the problems that >>> - people nak recipes but do not update patchwork >>> - patches receive improvement suggestions and are not updated in patchwork >>> - new versions are posted but patchwork is not updated. >> >> All 3 cases seems like author fault, sometimes I've contacted author for >> patch update and never received reply :/. >> > > Guess we should make all these things more explict in the policy (I > think there is a page how to submit patches or so). > > BTW: wrt the ack suggestion from koen: > > I feel it is silly to ack my own patch. You ping your own patches -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFMwWRzMkyGM64RGpERArNnAJ9XB4aP938QOrinKBdvC8QTYwEc2ACgrNXR 0ssXMRYVQHUqRUJ+hKuwkyw= =qj4R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----