Comments on: Peer Review http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/191 Ian Lance Taylor Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:38:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/191/comment-page-1#comment-13637 Ian Lance Taylor Thu, 15 May 2008 00:51:09 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/191#comment-13637 No feedback is a huge problem. But lettimg any other write-after-approval maintainer approve the change doesn't seem like the right answer to me. We give out write-after-approval pretty freely. Note that there generally isn't a person in charge. There are several people, which makes it easier to ignore patch pings, especially for complicated patches. No feedback is a huge problem. But lettimg any other write-after-approval maintainer approve the change doesn’t seem like the right answer to me. We give out write-after-approval pretty freely.

Note that there generally isn’t a person in charge. There are several people, which makes it easier to ignore patch pings, especially for complicated patches.

]]> By: Samuel Tardieu http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/191/comment-page-1#comment-13615 Samuel Tardieu Wed, 14 May 2008 07:58:59 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/191#comment-13615 About GCC: It would be great if "write after approval" maintainers could get approval from other w-a-a maintainers if the persons in charge of a subsystem don't answer in a reasonable delay. The problem as I see it is not that patches from w-a-a maintainers are rejected by the person in charge, which is totally reasonable if there are issues with the proposed change, but that there is sometimes no feedback at all for months despite repeated "PING" requests. Forcing the person in charge to step up if he doesn't want a change to go in (rather than staying mute) would probably be more productive in the case of some subsystems (the Ada front-end comes to mind). It would either increase the number of approved patches or at least improve communication and feedback. About GCC: It would be great if “write after approval” maintainers could get approval from other w-a-a maintainers if the persons in charge of a subsystem don’t answer in a reasonable delay. The problem as I see it is not that patches from w-a-a maintainers are rejected by the person in charge, which is totally reasonable if there are issues with the proposed change, but that there is sometimes no feedback at all for months despite repeated “PING” requests.

Forcing the person in charge to step up if he doesn’t want a change to go in (rather than staying mute) would probably be more productive in the case of some subsystems (the Ada front-end comes to mind). It would either increase the number of approved patches or at least improve communication and feedback.

]]>