Hi, I have no horse in these particular races, but I am going to throw my 2c in regardless:
In my opinion, 6 months or so delay on some reviews is fairly acceptable (there can be higher-priority items which take attention, it's understandable). But beyond that, especially if the contributor is active in requesting review / pinging people for review etc, further delay is not really acceptable and suggests that the maintainer for the area in question is simply not fulfilling their duties. If the maintainer disagrees with the contribution, that's fine: put a -1 if the patch can be amended/fixed, or a -2 if not (with the reasoning) and let everyone move on. Leaving reviews stagnate without providing a valid pathway forward is not valid, in my personal opinion. In some of the reviews above, the last comment from TQC engineers was something along the lines of "we need to think about this further" but then it was left in that state with no updates, for far too long. Again, it is understandable that everyone has high priority work they have, and they can forget about something - that's not a problem. But Ilya has been active in asking for updates and reviews, to remind people, but it seems that still these reviews haven't been addressed properly. I suspect that this might make other contributors wonder whether their own contributions will be reviewed in a timely manner, going forward, and thus reduce their willingness to contribute to Qt - something which should hopefully ring alarm bells for everyone in the Qt ecosystem. Best regards, Chris. On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 8:19 AM Ilya Fedin <fedin-ilja2...@ya.ru> wrote: > > I have multiple changes which hang for months and years which no idea > what to do to push them forward... I tried to write there asking for > review but reviewers seem to just ignore the messages... > > 1. The oldest change I have is > https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/343628 which is 3 years > old and had only reviewers adding other reviewers in first 2 years... > Then, in 2023, Allan Sandfeld Jensen commented with obscure "Still > disagree on the basic premise." and "Sure, this is breaking Qt centric > DEs to work better with obscure GTK-based DEs that doesn't bother > trying to integrate with Qt." despite I tested KDE which is surely a Qt > centric DE and the patch improves the behavior even on it. Then, Axel > Spoerl said the discussion has to be continued on Jira, almost a year > has passed but still no further discussion on QTBUG-43745... > > 2. https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/444859 which is 1.5 > years old and no review > > 3. https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/427313 and > https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/417817 (one is based on > top of theother) which are 1.5 years old and stalled when CI had a > strange error, Liang assumed it's a regression in testlib and no > updates since then... > > 4. https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/471045 which is 1 > year old and no review > > 5. https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/501396 which is 8 > months old a and no review > > 6. https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/519479 which is 6 > months old and stalled on waiting for public API which there seem to be > no plans for in near future while the main purpose of the patch is to > test (and possibly provide feedback) the feature while it's private > without side-effects to other applications on desktop > > 7. https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/515131 which is 6 > months old and no review > > 8. https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/528953 which is 4 > months old and no review > -- > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
