On 02/03/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps a middle ground between what we have now, and "trust but verify", would be to have a "without objection" rule. I.e. certain people are authorized to post patches and if no one objects within say two weeks, then they could then check it in. I think that would help clear up the backlog while still allowing people to comment *before* the patch goes in.
I am new here but since my recent ping-floods have been used as arguments to foster some opinions, I think I will give my opinion. I think the "without objection rule" is a bad idea. As it has been said already, relevant maintainers may be on vacation, may be busy during 2 weeks, or the patch may have fallen through the cracks. And precisely the latter is what I perceive as the real problem that a "without objection rule" will not solve and will actually introduce another problem: undesirable unreviewed patches get committed. The problem is not that reviewers do not review, they do. If you ping a patch it will get reviewed sooner or later. The problem is that if the submitter does not insist, the patch will go unnoticed. I guess there may be many reasons for not insisting and many reasons why the patches go unnoticed. Some reasons have been pointed out already: reviewers waiting for other reviewers to step in, submitter losing interest from lack of feedback, submitters ignore that they need to ping or how often, lack of reviews from non-maintainers, reviewers tend to focus on recent patches, ... Neither "trust but verify" or "without objection rule" would solve any of these problems. Just an uninformed opinion from a newbie, Manuel.
