From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EFCD9FB for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:42:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk (mezzanine.sirena.org.uk [106.187.55.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2459F28D for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:42:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:41:55 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Steven Rostedt Message-ID: <20150716144155.GM4039@sirena.org.uk> References: <20150709193718.GD9169@vmdeb7> <20150710143641.GW4341@mwanda> <20150710160714.GL111846@vmdeb7> <20150710222351.GA28632@kroah.com> <20150711000034.GU111846@vmdeb7> <20150711001348.GA30675@kroah.com> <20150711055441.GA6316@sudip-PC> <20150715212043.775be5d2@gandalf.local.home> <20150716132551.GH4039@sirena.org.uk> <20150716094720.2bf9f5ac@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rf72Gf+bfLC8kxKs" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150716094720.2bf9f5ac@gandalf.local.home> Cc: Dan Carpenter , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --rf72Gf+bfLC8kxKs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:47:20AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Well, then to each their own. I prefer the content free ping, because in > my mail client (claws), it brings the original patch up to the front > (my threading is to sort by latest email in the thread). A simple ping > will move their patch ahead of other patches that may have been sent > later, but are still in the abyss. Interesting, not noticed a mail client with that sorting scheme before. > A resend will just be a duplicate in my inbox and it will confuse me > about why I have more than one of the same patch. That happens often enough anyway due to people sending new versions in response to other review comments or similar so I find I need to cope with discarding old copies of things anyway. > > Not me, they tend to just annoy me for the reasons above. Resends are > > useful but just straight up pings not so much. > Then a simple reply to that content-free ping to tell the author what > you prefer. In fact, that's what I do when they ask me about it. I > sometimes even try to send a reply when I get the original patch > (privately to the author from my phone) that tells them to ping me in a > week if they don't hear back from me. That's what I do (or just ignore them if I already have the patch) but it does get rather repetitive and adds to the mail volume which is part of the problem. The basic reason I advise people to resend is that if a maintainer has a resend in their inbox they should have everything they need to handle the patch then and there, there are fewer things that can go wrong with that than with a content free ping. > > I'd say a couple of weeks is a better lower limit than a single week > > unless it's a very serious bugfix, a week could easily be a holiday or > > whatever and larger patches or patch serieses do take time to review. > The time length varies from person to person. Just let the author > know what you prefer. From developers I've talked to (including > myself), a week seems to be the norm to wait. Anything less is an > annoyance. Less than a week is of course far too fast, it's a good way to get ignored. On the other hand a week definitely does seem to too fast to be telling people to use as a starting point, my own experience submitting patches and watching other people submitting patches is that a week is definitely not an unusual time to have to wait for non-urgent things to get handled, I only tend to start worrying that things might've been missed after a couple of weeks. > One of the issues with newcomers coming to development of the Linux > kernel, is that every maintainer is different. We should be trying > harder to let people know what we prefer. Every maintainer expects > something different, but it's up to the maintainer to explicitly let > others know what they want. You can't expect everyone to read your > mind. I basically agree with that, what I'm saying on the response time is that I don't think you're setting realistic baselines for people. A week is just not what's actually happening in large parts of the kernel. There are some people I'd expect to respond within a week in the normal course of affairs but there are more where I wouldn't worry about it and even the more responsive people are often slower on larger changes like new driver submissions. --rf72Gf+bfLC8kxKs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVp8KyAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQb2wH/3RDN+Bez7Kd7PfdG8GPb8fc wEV7lx2tT4aG4P4e7E9bc/ZaiTIJsF+8gsbJU4hBBw4mq6TX2/N6cOE8+OJ0sUbl 2idMsA/VoClSXnUqS/kXDe57+MOcYWh3dgwy4NEjLViVb48ri/izlKqmcLURVJab q6lob+ribAEgOMYy6JtltXjfQ/rp9aFw/5c78MCjeMLzvFkgGCr0vYTWmhjdtYIU HQv2dbT6hGrgEHilWLb3mjbH4jXqc188eG7RCC4W1zbzJhJL6sE6Uwk/x83skDH2 GcuGcR6yI1oTqDexrJA0ZuhsxnIFCXigk2SLNd+0FlIgHESklPKP8N1p9L0vvx8= =zlHX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rf72Gf+bfLC8kxKs--