Hello, the current way to come forward is to send biweekly manual reminders.
Will it help, if bugzilla is tweaked to send reminders every two weeks for ready-patches? This also has the advantage, that people will not have to once update a patch in BZ and then send it over gcc-patches. Regards Дилян On Fri, 2018-12-07 at 10:55 +0000, Дилян Палаузов wrote: > Hello, > > will it help, if Bugzilla is reprogrammed to send automatically weekly > reminders on all patches, that are not integrated yet? > > Will lt help, if I hire myself to integrate the patch, or shall I > rather hire somebody to send reminders? > > If something can be done after sending a reminder, then it can be > arranged also without reminders. In particular, dealing with reminders > is avoidable extra work. > > Whether people are paid or not, does not change on the subject very > much. I have experienced organizations, where people are not paid and > they manage to tackle everything. I have seen organizations where > people are paid and they do not get the management right. > > I am not speaking about having some strict time to get a response, but > rather to ensure an answer in reasonable time. No answer in reasonable > time is the same as ignorance — the subject of this thread. > > The patch I proposed on 27th Oct was first submitted towards GDB and > then I was told to send it to GCC. Here I was told to sent it to GDB. > What shall happen to quit the loop? > > In any case, if the common aim is to have a system where contributions > do not get lost, then I’m sure the workflows can be adjusted to achieve > this aim. > > Regards > Дилян > > > On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 17:37 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > > Patches are usually ignored because everyone thinks someone else will > > > handle it. > > > > And in this case, it looks like this patch would best be reviewed first in > > the GDB context - then once committed to binutils-gdb, the committer could > > post to gcc-patches (CC:ing build system maintainers) requesting a commit > > to GCC if they don't have write access to GCC themselves. I consider > > synchronizing changes to such top-level files in either direction to be > > obvious and not to need a separate review. > >
