Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Patch bumping (was Re: Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 48566
- From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Patch bumping (was Re: Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values)
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:52:01 +0000
- Archived-at: <https://zsh.org/workers/48566>
- In-reply-to: <2EE1CCA0-E8C3-4A9F-898B-F823890EA58C@zsh.org>
- List-id: <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- References: <20210413133524.GJ6819@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <2EE1CCA0-E8C3-4A9F-898B-F823890EA58C@zsh.org>
Lawrence Velázquez wrote on Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 17:31:30 -0400:
> On Apr 13, 2021, at 9:35 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Regarding your taxonomy, would it be accurate to say that in cases
> > A and B a submitted patch is awaiting resolution, whereas in case C it's
> > generally a design question that's awaiting resolution? In A+B the
> > person in question is the patch submitter; in C the person in question
> > is probably a regular developer.
> Many type C discussions are just a committer saying "I'm thinking
> about committing this, what does everyone think?" and then waiting
> on any feedback, from nitpicks to overarching design critique.
In these, I think it matters whether the "this" referred to is the
committer's work or a patch submitter's work. In the latter case, it's
essentially case A again.
> > (Aside: Note the terminology: "developer", not "committer", since in
> > general, distinctions between people who do and don't have commit access
> > shouldn't be made, except when it's necessary to actually invoke «git
> > push».¹)
> Sure, but commit access is relevant to patch discussions involving
> noncommitting contributors (types A and B) because the commit step
> is often the only thing holding things up.
Personally, I don't recall that many threads ending with "the patch
LGTM, just need to push it when I'll get home" or similar.
> > No comment from me on case C.
> Should I continue bumping developer-only patch discussions at all?
> If so, I'm inclined to let them simmer for longer -- perhaps a month
> (as per workers/48516). I feel pretty pesky basically reminding
> committers to commit their own patches, but everyone forgets things
> now and then. Is it helpful or annoying?
Personally, I keep on my todo list patches I've posted, but not patches
I've reviewed or random ideas I've floated. I suspect that in general
reminders would be helpful when a patch submission requests
feedback/comments/reviews or asks a question.
Messages sorted by: