On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 07:55 +0000, Li, Pan2 via Gcc-patches wrote: > I see, thanks Richard for reminding. I am sorry I failed to locate > anywhere(doc or something else) mentioned such convention about ping,
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html suggests two week. > will follow the below convention in future. > > Pan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 3:30 PM > To: Li, Pan2 <pan2...@intel.com> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; > kito.ch...@sifive.com; Wang, Yanzhang <yanzhang.w...@intel.com>; > jeffreya...@gmail.com; rguent...@suse.de > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Machine_Mode: Extend machine_mode from 8 to 16 > bits > > "Li, Pan2" <pan2...@intel.com> writes: > > Kindly ping for this PATCH v3. > > The patch was sent on Saturday, so this is effectively pinging after > one working day in most of Europe and America. That's too soon and > comes across as aggressive. > > I realise you and others are working intensively on this. But in a > sense that's part of the reason why reviews might seem slow. The > volume of RVV patches recently has been pretty high, so it's been > difficult to keep up. There are have also been many other non-RVV > patches that have been "unlocked" by stage 1 opening, so there's a > high volume from that as well. > > Also, please bear in mind that most people active in the GCC community > have their own work to do and can only a dedicate a certain amount of > the day to reviews. And reviewing patches can be time-consuming in > itsself. > > So sometimes a patch will get a review within the day. Sometimes it > will take a bit longer. The fact that a patch doesn't get a response > within one working day doesn't mean that it's been forgotten. > > Thanks, > Richard -- Xi Ruoyao <xry...@xry111.site> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
