What about some sort of script that detects MR older than x time without a reviewer, and asks a group of people to take a look.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 19:36, Richard Eisenberg <r...@richarde.dev> wrote: > I wonder if it would alleviate the concerns to have a ghc-maintainers > mailing list. This is distinct from ghc-devs, in that the maintainers have > GHC as their day job. It would explicitly invite email from folks > struggling to figure out how to contribute. I don't mean to create more > mail for Ben et al, but having an explicit "seek help here" direction is > nice. And (at least for me) mailing a list for help feels more comfortable > than emailing an individual. > > Richard > > On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:30 PM, Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> wrote: > > Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> writes: > > | If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers > | for a new contributors patch > | then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new > | contributors. > > Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to > convey. Thanks for highlighting it. > > You'd like the maintainers to have an *obligation* to cause someone to > produce a good review on every patch. Here's the worst-case scenario: a > well-meaning but inexperienced person produces a stream of large, > ill-thought-out, and mostly wrong patches. To give a guarantee of high > quality reviews of those patches amounts to a blank cheque on the time of > volunteers working mostly in their spare time. > > Now, of course, that's an extreme scenario. But that's why I'm keen to > avoid making it an unconditional obligation that the few maintainers must > discharge. > > I don’t think there is really a difference of opinion here. Of course we > welcome patches; of course everyone will try to help find reviewers if they > are lacking! > > So how about this > - the author nominates reviewers > - if he or she finds difficulty in doing so, or the reviewers s/he > nominates are unresponsive, then he or she should ask for help > - maintainers should make efforts to help > > In my mind there has always been a (perhaps too implicit) promise that > maintainers are always present in the background and happy to help in > finding reviewers if asked (and perhaps even if not, if it seems a > contributor is lost). > > Perhaps we should make this more explicit? > > Cheers, > > - Ben > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs