git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Cc: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>,  git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] How to accellerate the patch flow (or should we?)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 13:00:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqjz1e1jfb.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aNsVT_OWOCAB3fzO@pks.im> (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Tue, 30 Sep 2025 01:25:03 +0200")

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 03:46:47PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
>> 
>> > Despite the potential awkwardness I have to wonder whether this would
>> > even help us with the goal to speed up the overall process. To me it
>> > rather feels like there's another step now that a patch series has to go
>> > through, so my naive expectation is that it will rather slow the process
>> > down even more.
>> >
>> > Am I missing something?
>> 
>> The above is an effort to reduce the chance/risk that the maintainer
>> is *not* made aware of the fact that a topic has already been well
>> reviewed, or the latest reroll has addressed all the issues
>> previously have pointed out and the reviewers are happy with its
>> shape, and ready to be merged to 'next', just left in 'seen' labeled
>> with "Will merge to 'next'?", etc.
>
> Ah, okay, that makes more sense then. So basically, reviewers should
> more explicitly state their overall opinion on a patch series so that it
> becomes easier for you to figure out the current state at a glance?

If they did so, it may reduce the time a topic wastes in limbo,
waiting for me to notice that it is ready.  What I do not know is if
such an additional burden on reviewers would slow us down overall.

Thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2025-10-01 20:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-26 22:24 [RFC] How to accellerate the patch flow (or should we?) Junio C Hamano
2025-09-27 21:32 ` Taylor Blau
2025-09-28  0:19   ` Junio C Hamano
2025-09-28  2:21     ` Taylor Blau
2025-09-29 22:23     ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-09-29 22:46       ` Junio C Hamano
2025-09-29 23:25         ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-10-01 20:00           ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2025-09-30 20:02       ` Taylor Blau
2025-09-30 20:28         ` Junio C Hamano
2025-09-29 20:12   ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-09-29 21:19     ` Ben Knoble
2025-09-29 22:23     ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-09-29 22:23   ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-09-30 20:04     ` Taylor Blau
2025-09-29 20:04 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-09-29 22:12   ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqqjz1e1jfb.fsf@gitster.g \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
    --cc=ps@pks.im \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).