2008/10/29 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The patch tracker was an experiment in trying to see if it would > improve the rate of patches falling through the cracks. > It had the secondary effect of getting some other patches reviewed > quicker in some cases, because of those who paid attention to it.
I will add that it was very useful for tracking patches to PRs. > In reality, it didn't improve the rate of patch dropping in the areas > that we were dropping patches. It guess it turns out those people > specifically in charge of those areas didn't care if a long list of > patches on a web page pointed to them :) Well, those patches were in the list. With the patch tracker at least there is proof of which areas are dropping patches and probably need more reviewers. Otherwise the patches get silently lost. One of the reasons why sporadic contributors do not stick with us is that they feel ignored (or conversely that they do not have enough patience to ping 4 or 5 times). While the patch tracker was active, it also happened a few times that more veteran contributors sent some patch only to forget completely about it and never request a review. But such patches do not get lost in they are in the tracker. I agree that the patch tracker probably does not get more patches reviewed but it definitely gets less patches lost. > It did improve the rate of patch dropping among those who have limited > time to wade through email, I think, but there are better ways to > present that info (IE "i am Diego Novilllo, give me the list of > patches on the mailing list i could look at") Not the same at all. If you have some time to review a patch, you probably want to do it right now. Not send an email and wait for answers. Moreover, that mail could be also missed by the contributors. Finally, I think I have never seen anyone asking for patches to review. Never. But some people did wander through the patch tracker. A bi-weekly status report of the patch tracker sent to gcc-patches would definitively make the list of unreviewed patches more visible. I believe this may also be a problem for the continuous builder: If there is no visible feedback from it, that is, if one needs to actively check its status, then it is likely to be missed/neglected. Cheers, Manuel.
