On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 4:00 PM Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > > On 5/16/24 17:36, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 2:29 PM Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > >> If no one, including the author (new or otherwise) is interested in > >> shepherding a particular patch, what chance does it have of ever getting > >> committed? > > > > That's a very different thing from what I think will actually happen, which > > is > > > > - new author posts patch > > - community member says "use commitfest!" > > Here is where we should point them at something that explains the care > and feeding requirements to successfully grow a patch into a commit. > > > - new author registers patch > > - no one reviews it > > - patch gets automatically booted > > Part of the care and feeding instructions should be a warning regarding > what happens if you are unsuccessful in the first CF and still want to > see it through. > > > - community member says "register it again!" > > - new author says ಠ_ಠ > > As long as this is not a surprise ending, I don't see the issue.
I've experienced this in another large open-source project that runs on Github, not mailing lists, and here's how it goes: 1. I open a PR with a small bugfix (test case included). 2. PR is completely ignored by committers (presumably because they all mostly work on their own projects they're getting paid to do). 3. <3 months goes by> 4. I may get a comment with "please rebase!", or, more frequently, a bot closes the issue. That cycle is _infuriating_ as a contributor. As much as I don't like to hear "we're not doing this", I'd far prefer to have that outcome then some automated process closing out my submission without my input when, as far as I can tell, the real problem is not my lack of activity by the required reviewers simply not looking at it. So I'm genuinely confused by you say "As long as this is not a surprise ending, I don't see the issue.". Perhaps we're imagining something different here reading between the lines? Regards, James Coleman
