On Thu, 08/10 12:25, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > I think the UI (giving no consideration to how we might implement > > this!) would ideally be something like: > > * if anybody mails a patch which touches an "unmaintained" file, > > a robot should send a reply along the lines of "thanks for the > > patch; unfortunately file X is not maintained so it may be > > tricky to get patch review for this. You'll need to be > > persistent and do more of the legwork than if you were patching > > a file that did have an active maintainer" so contributors > > know when they've wandered into the swamp > > That's a good idea. > > > * some mechanism for easily finding patches to unmaintained > > files which haven't got review yet, so that anybody with some > > spare time and interest can move some of them along (the idea > > being to spread the load rather than trying to designate a > > particular "owner" for this headache) > > Can maybe patchew set a special flag for patches that only touch > unmaintained files?
Interesting idea. We have a number of patch status tracking feature requests for patchew already. We can tackle them one by one. (The next priority is implement "merged".) > > > * ditto for finding patches to unmaintained files which have got > > review but which haven't been committed > > > > thanks > > -- PMM >
