From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: Marlon <marlon.richert@gmail.com>
Cc: "Lawrence Velázquez" <larryv@zsh.org>,
"Zsh hackers list" <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: Patch bumping (was Re: Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:32:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210413123200.GI6819@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A34A0C2C-F836-47CF-90A6-B1A27633C6D4@gmail.com>
[Marlon: Your quote attribution line is indented one more level than is
conventional]
Marlon wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:18:43 +0300:
> On 12 Apr 2021, at 00:24, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> > With appreciation for Lawrence's efforts, I'd respectfully request
> > that the criteria for when to send a "bump" become a matter of record.
> >
> > There seem to me to be these cases:
> >
> > 1. The patch has never been reviewed or discussed.
> > 2. The patch was reviewed and is acceptable, but was never applied.
> > 3. There was a discussion, but it ended without resolution.
> > 4. The patch was referred back to the author after review or discussion.
> >
> > There is room for subjective interpretation of "is acceptable". A
> > possible resolution of #2 is that the patch is rejected after all
> > (perhaps it has become obsolete in the meantime).
> >
> > I mention this mostly because I think the useful elapsed time before
> > "bumping" might be different in each case. In particular #4 seems
> > like it could be left considerably longer, unless the patch is fixing
> > a serious bug or security issue.
> >
> > Thoughts?
Leaving #4 "considerably longer" would decrease temporal locality in the
patch authors' brains, would reap less "the project noticed my lack of
response" benefits (cf.
https://producingoss.com/en/managing-participants.html#delegation-followup),
and would be more likely to find the patch author busy with other things
and unable to follow up and post a revised patch.
You don't actually say what benefits you seek to attain. Is it about,
say, bumps that are replies to previous bumps? If so, I'd propose, say:
- A bump that is a reply to a non-bump should be sent with delay X.
- A bump that is a reply to a bump should be sent with delay Y.
- A bump that is a reply to a bump that is a reply to a bump should be
sent with delay Z and added to git (as proposed in workers/48303).
- A bump (that is a reply to a bump)³ should not be sent.
(Feel free to read "should" and "should not" in their rfc2119 senses.)
> Additionally, it would be helpful if committers remember to inform us
> when a when a patch has been accepted/rejected/applied,
This would be helpful for other other reasons too:
- It would let the patch submitter know their patch has been accepted.
(Simply committing the patch to git without replying to it might leave
the patch submitter think they were ignored.)
- It would make it easier for other committers to skip PATCH threads
that have already been handled.
> to avoid unnecessary bumps.
Cheers,
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-13 12:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-28 20:53 Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values Marlon Richert
2021-03-29 7:39 ` Daniel Shahaf
2021-03-29 11:55 ` Marlon Richert
2021-03-29 17:11 ` Daniel Shahaf
2021-03-29 17:20 ` Bart Schaefer
2021-03-29 18:14 ` Daniel Shahaf
2021-03-29 20:00 ` Marlon Richert
2021-03-29 20:05 ` Daniel Shahaf
2021-03-29 20:35 ` Marlon Richert
2021-04-01 4:28 ` Marlon Richert
2021-04-01 18:40 ` Daniel Shahaf
2021-04-02 0:50 ` Oliver Kiddle
2021-04-10 20:20 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2021-04-11 20:06 ` Marlon Richert
2021-04-11 21:24 ` Patch bumping (was Re: Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values) Bart Schaefer
2021-04-12 8:18 ` Marlon
2021-04-13 12:32 ` Daniel Shahaf [this message]
2021-04-13 18:08 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2021-04-15 9:39 ` [META] Tone of voice / Writing style in patch reviews (was Re: Patch bumping) Marlon
2021-04-15 10:33 ` zeurkous
2021-04-13 13:35 ` Patch bumping (was Re: Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values) Daniel Shahaf
2021-04-13 21:31 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2021-04-13 21:50 ` Bart Schaefer
2021-04-14 12:52 ` Daniel Shahaf
2021-04-13 2:47 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2021-04-12 20:22 ` Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values Marlon
2021-04-12 21:49 ` Bart Schaefer
2021-04-13 4:50 ` Marlon Richert
2021-03-30 5:41 ` Mikael Magnusson
2021-03-31 22:55 ` Daniel Shahaf
2021-03-31 23:03 ` Daniel Shahaf
2021-03-29 20:10 ` Peter Stephenson
2021-03-29 11:48 ` Mikael Magnusson
2021-03-29 12:06 ` Marlon Richert
2021-03-29 12:07 ` Marlon Richert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210413123200.GI6819@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2 \
--to=d.s@daniel.shahaf.name \
--cc=larryv@zsh.org \
--cc=marlon.richert@gmail.com \
--cc=zsh-workers@zsh.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).