Hello Segher, the current procdure is:
-- write at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ -- read an answer, that the update shall be posted to gcc-patches -- subscribe to gcc-patches, post the change and wait for an answer. This waiting is not for free. There are a lot of emails, for the person might not be interested, but only waits for a reply on the own email. So after some time, I made filters sorting the emails from the mailing list, in order to make the waiting cheaper. -- at https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/contribute.html is written “If you do not receive a response to a patch that you have submitted within two weeks or so, it may be a good idea to chase it by sending a follow-up email to the same list(s).” Because it is written that reminders are..., I have sent a reminder. > > If yes, how do you propose to proceed, so that a > > no-reminders-are-necessary-state is reached? > > Keep things as is? Reminders already are not necessary. > This statement does not align with the aforementioned webpage. The optimal way will be, if a bug/patch is filled in bugzilla and nothing more is necessary from the reporter. Postgres sends bugs collected over website over a mailing list. Regards Дилян On Sun, 2019-02-10 at 14:56 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi Dilyan, > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 02:45:02PM +0000, Дилян Палаузов wrote: > > Do you share the opinion, that whatever can be done after receiving a > > reminder, can be arranged also without reminder? > > Yes. When people have time for it, they can trivially check what PRs are > still open that they are involved in. > > > If yes, how do you propose to proceed, so that a > > no-reminders-are-necessary-state is reached? > > Keep things as is? Reminders already are not necessary. > > If you want more attention given to the bugs you are involved in, you can > hire people to do that, or file reports for more interesting bugs, or make > your bug reports easier to work with. > > Since GCC has one major release every year, handling less urgent bugs can > take up to a year as well. > > > I read in the answer of Segher, that the purpose of reminding is not only > > to ping, but also to filter the ones who are > > pernetrant and sending manually reminders is the means to verify, that the > > persons really want to make progress. It was > > certainly not intentionally meant this way, but this is a possible reading. > > The point is that automated reminders for PRs *are spam*. > > > Segher
