From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94C621E531 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 00:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730852402; cv=none; b=Bcld5AIrpkDMRWrFTdBcDXoaVAEJFnOgr/4GlnILTff2zUQ4xgIqVbdPqZcFm+RQbhzt6qL+OjA3xy0y76hd5DEJUmaPxFtD55ZiHLK8+pZG2o+ZVcM0Dr3Tprjjo9E0UqG/LkbJUMzeGVH1edZnuxcDY8Br6AtXghF2IgVYx9E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730852402; c=relaxed/simple; bh=S0PQQOUUp6030vf3MMdwhoTnloAaVgOK9BvP1PY0wTM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YCQlak5d8ZRydUgrKY5+IbymI5F5a+dANCuBkegrNJpsnIb4rzNsuCXyoz7Z/nUPXuMXCmMQJH4ba6YG2fnJDVSQrVn7QTIg1JB683cx5tnggh+a9GlJI6R3vOa5yN9duyiu9DWl5/qqoBxCB4gqfo4SXZWydQFYKcBWMD4TJQ8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=eWHtYGIg; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=jtltTCAh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="eWHtYGIg"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="jtltTCAh" Received: from phl-compute-12.internal (phl-compute-12.phl.internal [10.202.2.52]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0034254012B; Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-12.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 Nov 2024 19:19:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1730852399; x=1730938799; bh=ZMW3EhHGbx +9U7gevGEHKQzzlb+92uRtMeduGpZ4PHw=; b=eWHtYGIgym+LsiENMApLovFoyY ydYLZs62P4KCiNqurInVfk3TcLbhnV6Wwp8voqsgmfzV1xinFQTUv6lsJ8XUUDkl FCEq0PSTzD90YK3qVUdt3R8c/Wnf/I8kMW471fzjtNmxZkS5w1g8cDZFxWIUYRX+ CLrmEzRiB78f4oh6PNljRCwgUFteRXajB8SOIoeTsDdBPFv2L5HpcE4wpsarYExy WCLQa5NnA6aUxf9wGiWQYQ6bdBcJSck/0tV+D4v6nZCMm28TQeWf41XL8uwSPN4E 571uSc8OCAOAAbOp6ZSqWqv3SnQH8lTqpWxqNbxax1l655ihxMwWsoqmzltw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1730852399; x=1730938799; bh=ZMW3EhHGbx+9U7gevGEHKQzzlb+92uRtMed uGpZ4PHw=; b=jtltTCAhsPbGNAZHJ/3N1eyd5Kf3fCHlXP0zsv1yxsPD3nv+05x 4fboRxih+9ogodQHYniSBt1tU03UcS53Oe0nvHliPllWNTeD6rMPlNcBp4z1bSo3 X3dvXs+b+uUoQK0MRYbO2W+aHLgMtaj0QNwb7mghf5vP2gRRAJsoFzcwD0eINqbG +uKLI3xLMUDH1Z55fxnDNUZ8bTER0V5tzQ+xMMfIgaqWrsI0Y2qePov+VDxqcQ9m bZH3nw1h8FKhasnYz++gJu7gyNrZ533D5bP/BLWHlBZADUWCiC+LgMlFDu9SYq5b mZQci5E+NR01mLxNJXatXxl+OfDJryu8EzQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrtddugddvudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpuffr tefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnth hsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredtnecu hfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucevucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrd gtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueefjeel ueffteeigffgfedthfefieegieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmh epmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphht thhopeefpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopegsvghntggvsehfvghrug hinhgrnhguhidrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdho rhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:19:58 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Bence Ferdinandy" Cc: Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2024, #02; Fri, 1) In-Reply-To: (Bence Ferdinandy's message of "Tue, 05 Nov 2024 21:54:03 +0100") References: Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 16:19:57 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain "Bence Ferdinandy" writes: >> Thanks everybody, especially Taylor, for keeping things going while >> I was away. Unfortunately, we seem to have acquired way too many >> topics that were posted and picked up without getting reviewed. As >> we discussed a few months ago in , I'll >> start discarding topics that have seen no activities for 3 or more >> weeks. Interested parties can of course revive these topics. > > [snip] > > Considering the above, > ... > and that this version of the series has been in for two weeks: is there > something I should/can be doing so as not to hit the 3 week mark? The "manual" to run the project on the maintainer side has this: - If a topic that was picked up to 'seen' becomes and stays inactive for 3 calendar weeks without having seen a clear consensus that it is good enough to be moved to 'next', the topic may be discarded from 'seen'. Interested parties are still free to revive the topic. For the purpose of this guideline, the definition of being "inactive" is that nobody has discussed the topic, no new iteration of the topic was posted, and no responses to the review comments were given. If the topic has been updated large-ish-ly since the previous rounds, it may deserve a fresh review, or the reviewers of the previous rounds may find it sufficient that they judge based on the change since the previous round (assuming that the earlier reviews did a good job of hunting problems in the previous rounds). I do not offhand know who read the topic and how big a course-change the topic took during my absense, so hopefully somebody who is more familiar with the latest round can chime in before I dig the topic out from the bottom of my pile of backlog. Thanks.