> From: Dimitrios Apostolou <ji...@gmx.net> > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:25:49 +0200
> Hi hp, thanks for the notes, I'm just going to highlight my point of view. > > Regarding patch pinging, my take is that is should be seldom necessary, > for example I tend to forget my small patches after sometime. Me too, so I wrote myself a reminder system. :) A branch in a local git mirror with your pending patches will probably help too. > So IMHO > anyone replying anything is good, especially if he CCs the maintainer > (Dodji-style :-). Getting the patch on the radar of the right maintainer definitely helps. ;) > As you said, a get_maintainer script would come handy. Yes, I'd think all it takes is a volunteer to add markup to the MAINTAINERS file and a copy of the Linux scripts/get_maintainer.pl, but there might be controversy regarding mapping of maintainer area to file; there can not be a 1-1 mapping, but probably good enough. See Ian's post about getting volunteer help with the suggested tools. It might not be a priority for the usual gcc hackers who already know the mapping good enough. > It's also the case that I often send RFC patches: patches with comments > discussing a controversial idea, probably without changelog or regression > testing. Sometimes I don't even CC anyone since I don't really expect a > review, I only want to raise discussion. > > Unfortunately such patches are 80% probable to be completely ignored. What > do you think? A general question. I don't remember seeing anything I can relate to, so I have to go with a general reply; it depends on the level of controversy and the importance of getting the work going in the right direction (both for patch author and people seeing the patch). Good legwork usually pays off at least to the level of a review or a reply: do the testing, write the ChangeLog entry. When pinging, CC maintainers of that area. brgds, H-P
