Our current defacto policy requires involvement on both sides. Submitters need to be involved in finding people to review their patches. Posting patches to the review queue does not automatically get you a review, except occasionally by Darin Adler or myself.If a bug totally stalls, and is sitting in the review queue untouched I view that as the responsible reviewers' implicit rejection of the patch. I, as a responsible reviewer, am simply making explicit that implicit rejection. Personally, I'd rather get an r- on my patches than have them sit ignored for multiple weeks at a time.
Let's examine these statements in a broader light, substituting "bug database" for "review queue" and "bug" for "patch":
Our current defacto policy requires involvement on both sides. Submitters need to be involved in finding people to fix their bugs. Filing bugs to the bug database does not automatically get you a fix, except occasionally by Darin Adler or myself.
If a bug totally stalls, and is sitting in the bug database untouched, I view that as the responsible reviewers' implicit rejection of the bug. I, as a responsible reviewer, am simply making explicit that implicit rejection. Personally, I'd rather get a "closed" on my bugs than have them sit ignored for multiple weeks at a time.
So, Eric, should we close all bugs that are older than 2 weeks? Geoff
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev