On 6 January 2012 20:42, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > On 01/06/2012 02:02 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> i) Unless it's a build fix, I propose defining a minimum review time >> before a patch is applied to a (sub)maintainer's queue.
> I disagree here. If anything, I think we wait a bit too long for people to > review things and that prevents progress. Actually I think it would be useful to agree on a "standard" time for this kind of thing. A lot of the ARM related patches I do don't get review, and it would be nice to know how long it's sensible to wait until I can submit them in a pull request. (I don't want to cut short time for people to review, but I don't want them languishing on the list for weeks either...) >> Or should a PULL generally be re-reviewed within a >> fixed timeframe, questionmark? We shouldn't be rereviewing pull requests -- they should be basically equivalent to actual tree commit. >> It would be nice to have a more explicit process of who pulls from whom >> and how this is handled during maintainers' absences - especially when >> approaching a release. Agreed. In particular it would be nice to have a definite nominated person who I ought to send target-arm pullreqs to, since all I know for sure is that it's not Anthony :-) -- PMM
