Re: Policy for 'Pending' patches (was Re: [PATCH 02/16] slang: Fix namespace conflict vis-a-vis posix_close)

[Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>]

On 2015-09-10 06:08, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 02:50 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote:
>
>>> Then we can formulate a policy on top of that: for example, if a patch
>>> has been 'Pending' for 3 months, the person who added it gets a
>>> reminder to update the status; if the patch has been 'Pending' for 6
>>> months and the patch person has been unresponsive, no more patches are
>>> accepted from that person until he does the upstreaming of the ones he
>>> already got into oe-core. Something like that.
>>
>> With so many maintainers on so many different layers/etc we would need
>> some sort of billboard somewhere listing the names of people currently
>> on the "naughty" list ;-)
>
> Yes, something similar to http://recipes.yoctoproject.org
>
> And the autobuilder could automatically reject or flag a patch that adds custom 'Pending' patches, if the patch author is determined to be on the 'naughty' list :-)

What would you do to the poor sod that sends a patch upstream
(i.e. Pending) that is not being moved on by the upstream holders?
Punish him by making his patch (and potentially all others he
has created) invalid?  Seems a bit harsh...

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------