On May 21, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
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?
I thought of the same analogy, and for this reason I disagree with
Eric's proposed change. Marking patches r- without review feedback is
impolite to the patch submitter, and loses valuable information.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
