From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: 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 13:35:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210413133524.GJ6819@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <447A0505-D429-4714-A225-994B61213973@zsh.org> <A34A0C2C-F836-47CF-90A6-B1A27633C6D4@gmail.com>
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:
> > 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.
⋮
> > 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.
>
> I would suggest the following minimum wait times before bumping:
>
> * To remind about an unresolved patch (not yet reviewed, not yet responded to by author after review, not yet accepted/rejected/committed, etc.):
> * security issues: 2 days
> * critical bug fixes: 1 week
> * all other patches: 2 weeks
> * Everything else: 1 month
I'm not sure what cases fall into "etc." and what cases fall into
"everything else", nor what would a "critical" bugfix be.
Lawrence Velázquez wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 22:47:50 -0400:
> On Apr 11, 2021, at 5:24 PM, 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.
>
> Certainly! I've been combing the lists every Saturday afternoon/evening
> UTC and uniformly bumping recent discussions that have been inactive for
> more than five days (to loop in the preceding weekend).
>
⋮
> (A) A noncommitter is waiting on a committer (#1, #2, #3).
> (B) A committer is waiting on a noncommitter (#4).
> (C) A committer is waiting on other committers (the parallel cases).
>
> As the reason the "patch manager" role exists [*], group A should
> be handled expeditiously, while groups B and C can wait. (This
> classification reflects how meddlesome I feel when I send reminders.)
>
> I think a threshold of 1-2 weeks remains appropriate for A, but
> perhaps ~1 month would better suit B and C?
How would differential delays affect your workflow? A uniform criterion
(such as "Thread has been dormant for >5 days") should be easier to apply.
Regarding your taxonomy, would it be accurate to say that in cases
A and B a submitted patch is awaiting resolution, whereas in case C it's
generally a design question that's awaiting resolution? In A+B the
person in question is the patch submitter; in C the person in question
is probably a regular developer.
(Aside: Note the terminology: "developer", not "committer", since in
general, distinctions between people who do and don't have commit access
shouldn't be made, except when it's necessary to actually invoke «git
push».¹)
Regarding the magic numbers, I think one month is too long for case B
(cf. my remarks today in workers/48526). We don't want to bump _too_
soon either, but I'd aim for something on the order of a week (for the
first ping, again as per 48526). "Once a week for patches ≥6 days old"
achieves that, as would, say, "at least 48 weekend hours and at least
72 weekday hours".
No comment from me on case C.
Cheers,
Daniel
> > unless the patch is fixing a serious bug or security issue.
>
> Do you think we need to prescribe a standard for these? They seem
> pretty rare, and committers are unlikely to let them drop through
> the cracks. My initial inclination is to leave them to committers'
> discretion. (I'm not privy to zsh-security@ anyway.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-13 13:35 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
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 ` Daniel Shahaf [this message]
2021-04-13 21:31 ` Patch bumping (was Re: Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values) 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=20210413133524.GJ6819@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2 \
--to=d.s@daniel.shahaf.name \
--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).