Correction, we just need someone to mark all the comitted patches in patchwork so that we can easily pick out the ones with issues.
On 7 September 2015 at 04:56, Albert Freeman <albertwdfree...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oops, my "plan" focuses on patches that have nothing wrong with them, > instead of patches that have something wrong with them (which is the > problem). It is lack of reviews, not lack of commits. I have no idea > how I got so confused. Basically we need the inverse of patchwork. > > On 6 September 2015 at 11:42, Albert Freeman <albertwdfree...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Ah, okay. I see what you mean now (i.e. you had to wait three months >> for those suggestions I mentioned). I still haven't recieved a >> response at all for my first patch from almost a year ago (although it >> was insanely trivial). So it isn't just you :) >> >> Committers simply don't have the time to find every patch. >> >> From what I can see, this is due to the fact that the current "mailing >> list model" does not really provide an easy way for committers to know >> when something actually should be committed. Patches sometimes have >> reviewed by lines that would require AI to analyse properly (basically >> making automation impractical) (e.g. suggested changes of reviewer >> followed by reviewed by line - while in other cases just the reviewed >> by line). >> >> Plan "draft": >> We need more meaningful patch response tags. >> Some way to assign "review power" based on email address. >> A policy deciding when a patch is ready (based on response tags and >> "review power"). >> Some way to parse the entire mesa mailing list and send all the >> patches that meet criteria to the committer. >> >> Three problems: >> 1. I can't implement this with my current email and/or scripting knowledge. >> 2. We can't just automatically commit patches for security reasons >> (best not to mention). >> 3. Whether committers would even like to make any changes. >> >> On 6 September 2015 at 08:28, Lauri Kasanen <c...@gmx.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:29:05 +0000 >>> Albert Freeman <albertwdfree...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The reply from Eric Anholt made two suggestions that should not be >>>> difficult to implement for someone who made the patch in the first >>>> place. Why would code be committed when improvements could be easily >>>> made? From what I have seen, this kind of thing happens even to >>>> experienced mesa developers who know exactly what they are doing. >>>> >>>> It is much better to arrive at a solution without the issue now than >>>> wait a few years (or some other period of time) for it to be replaced >>>> by someone who has likely forgotten the details involved with its >>>> implementation (or by someone who did not write the code in the first >>>> place). >>> >>> Oh, absolutely - I had no issues with "this needs changing". My issue >>> was with the fact it took months to get that. Had I come up with a new >>> patch, it would likely have taken a similar time, months again, which >>> did not inspire confidence. >>> >>> Benjamin, if you want to take it forward, please do. >>> >>> - Lauri _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
