On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I assume you'll get a similar response from many people: hopefully,
> > for each patch it will either get booed automatically (hey! I just added
> > braces instead of indentation to the parser) or will interest someone.
>
> The thing here that makes me slightly uncomfortable is how to keep
> track of patches that nobody picks up. a Jitterbug database would
> nicely do this, but I agree that it's inconvenient and overkill for
> other reasons. Perhaps we could use the "Linus Torvalds' inbox
> algorithm"? (When it overflows he deletes everything; "if it was
> important they'll send it again.")
We have a mailing list to archive the patches, so the "delete all"
approach becomes a bit harder :-).
Note that the approach requires feedback to be successful. The patch
author must watch CVS to know if the patch went it. Otherwise, the patch
handlers would be required to notify the author one way or another. With
the notify route, then we'd have to state something like "you should
resend if you haven't heard back within X weeks." But the notify/resend
approach also creates an expectation that a patch *will* be handled within
a *specific* timeframe.
Dunno what I'd think the policy should look like right now. More thought
needed on my part, so I'll just defer until a list is set up and discuss
there...
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
> > I assume you'll get a similar response from many people: hopefully,
> > for each patch it will either get booed automatically (hey! I just added
> > braces instead of indentation to the parser) or will interest someone.
>
> The thing here that makes me slightly uncomfortable is how to keep
> track of patches that nobody picks up. a Jitterbug database would
> nicely do this, but I agree that it's inconvenient and overkill for
> other reasons. Perhaps we could use the "Linus Torvalds' inbox
> algorithm"? (When it overflows he deletes everything; "if it was
> important they'll send it again.")
We have a mailing list to archive the patches, so the "delete all"
approach becomes a bit harder :-).
Note that the approach requires feedback to be successful. The patch
author must watch CVS to know if the patch went it. Otherwise, the patch
handlers would be required to notify the author one way or another. With
the notify route, then we'd have to state something like "you should
resend if you haven't heard back within X weeks." But the notify/resend
approach also creates an expectation that a patch *will* be handled within
a *specific* timeframe.
Dunno what I'd think the policy should look like right now. More thought
needed on my part, so I'll just defer until a list is set up and discuss
there...
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/