Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 13:56:08 -0600 From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: "John T. Farmer" <jfarmer@goldsword.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: conf/11376 still suspended Message-ID: <200205131956.g4DJu8tI089102@orthanc.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 May 2002 17:01:09 PDT." <20020510170109.A55363@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Kris" == Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes:
Kris> A lot of the old stale patches in the PR database are old and
Kris> stale because they are of poor technical quality or mysterious
Kris> merit, and therefore they are unsuitable for committing in
Kris> their present form.
This implies that a committer has reviewed the PR and decided it's not
ready for prime time. If that is the case, why are these PRs not set to
the closed or feedback states? Having everything in the open state makes
it appear that the PRs are being ignored.
I suspect that a large part of what's happening here is that committers
review a PR, decide they aren't the expert on the area, and move along
looking for something closer to their specialized area. Since everyone
leaves PRs for someone else, the PRs never get closed by anyone. This
would account for the periodic "close a PR today" sweeps through gnats.
The committers need to be a bit more pro-active about actively managing
PR states. And about not being too shy to commit obvious simple fixes
to files they don't "own."
--lyndon
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200205131956.g4DJu8tI089102>