On Fri, 08/11 14:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 11/08/2017 09:54, Fam Zheng wrote: > > 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".) > > Do you use github issues?
I have a private trello board that is slightly more up to date, but github issues does have a few entries too. We can certainly discuss things there. Fam
