Hello Segher, your prompt answer is appreciated.
As a matter of fact patches are not reviewed for whatever reason in reasonable time. My point is to reorgnize the approach in such a way, that sending reminders gets irrelevant (has no impact) and therefore not necessary. Currently priority is given to submitters who send reminders, irrespective of the properties a patch has. Regards Дилян On Mon, 2019-02-11 at 10:22 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:16:27PM +0000, Дилян Палаузов wrote: > > Hello Segher, > > > > my question was how do you propose to proceed, so that a > > no-reminders-for-patches-are-necessary-state is reached. > > > > There is no relation with having infinite time or dealing with high-cost > > low-profit patches. > > > > Previously I raised the quesion, whether automating the process for sending > > reminders, is a good idea. This saves time > > of people to write reminders. > > But that would be "optimising" exactly the wrong thing! The choke point is > patch review. So you should make it easier to review a patch, instead of > making it easier to send in more patches. Your complaint is that many > patches are sent in but then not reviewed, or not reviewed for a long while, > after all. > > Easy to review patches are of course first and foremost patches that do the > correct thing. But also they need to clearly say what they fix (and how), > how the patch was tested, and they should often contain testcases for the > testsuite. Easy to review patches usually use the same style and > presentation as all other easy to review patches. > > > Segher
