From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 17066 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2021 02:48:30 -0000 Received: from zero.zsh.org (2a02:898:31:0:48:4558:7a:7368) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 13 Apr 2021 02:48:30 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20200801; h=List-Archive:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Id:Sender:To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=bSnGKe44frclvnPXm+S2zmGIPFFLp5uKCHMBonYy2n4=; b=k8kVb6mNAUxf0QFo09mFZLJYVZ T8bNoLV1fjZZba+ZABB3PH4SpGM7ewZm8uPXQCppw0XcXskXt1HsQvUnGsZyzG/ye9k4Z8I2gYgMA xqNhTxPL3/nhVJfcYRtPnzptwn0mdEtPweyS+qw1e3C2VJoZ9OBO7C7xzyDk9Z09fj9x2R24/NRu1 UjUf2L/0+qMCoVn48iGNJ7ZQiq1G89IioShRREQ5phPuuhB+8w1C+HtgQkNlhPXUiNWXA5d7Z1SOC hQO5wdSD7ItVV8huRcIkzPYCVu3d6CpCzTCqFjSPTYRUH9nEKmXiEvSua4/6i/JSLwlidAOCAZCps +c0y7XUg==; Received: from authenticated user by zero.zsh.org with local id 1lW96H-0003bA-CS; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 02:48:25 +0000 Received: from authenticated user by zero.zsh.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1lW95m-0003Ob-9P; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 02:47:54 +0000 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F0827C0054; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:47:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:47:52 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudekkedgiedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepnfgrfihr vghntggvpgggvghljoiiqhhuvgiiuceolhgrrhhrhihvseiishhhrdhorhhgqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpefgffeiheejjeegtdfggeelteetieettdejffevuddvkeejheeghfek hffhgeetvdenucffohhmrghinhepphhrohguuhgtihhnghhoshhsrdgtohhmnecukfhppe dutddtrdduvddrudelkedrgeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghm pehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgrrhhrhihvodhmvghsmhhtphgruhhthhhpvghrshhonhgrlh hithihqdduudehudekjeejtdegqdduudelvdejfeekhedqlhgrrhhrhihvpeepiihshhdr ohhrghesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.1.15] (pool-100-12-198-44.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [100.12.198.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8FBAF1080064; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\)) Subject: Re: Patch bumping (was Re: Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values) From: =?utf-8?Q?Lawrence_Vel=C3=A1zquez?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:47:50 -0400 Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org, Marlon Richert Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <447A0505-D429-4714-A225-994B61213973@zsh.org> References: <20210329073913.GP18178@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <20210329171120.GA6044@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <20210329181452.GB6044@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <18618-1617324651.844569@tLsN.0hLE.FeTt> <2c44b17c-407d-449e-be2e-610db313c1d7@www.fastmail.com> To: Bart Schaefer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17) X-Seq: 48516 Archived-At: X-Loop: zsh-workers@zsh.org Errors-To: zsh-workers-owner@zsh.org Precedence: list Precedence: bulk Sender: zsh-workers-request@zsh.org X-no-archive: yes List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: > On Apr 11, 2021, at 5:24 PM, Bart Schaefer = wrote: >=20 > 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). > There seem to me to be these cases: >=20 > 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've observed a parallel set of cases initiated by committers' requests for feedback. The dynamic is somewhat different; the discussions are never held up due to a participant's technical constraints, and they tend to be more open-ended. Plus, the "contributor morale" benefits [*] of reminders don't apply. > 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 I've been thinking along similar lines myself and have found an alternative taxonomy to be clarifying: (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? > 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.) [*]: https://producingoss.com/en/share-management.html#patch-manager "The project might miss out on a useful patch this way, and there are other harmful side effects as well: it is discouraging to the author, who invested work in the patch, and it is discouraging to others considering writing patches." --=20 vq=