On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 11:12:43AM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: > However, as you point out, this does create a secondary issue of making > it harder to make things disappear from the sponsorship queue > _intentionally_. For the server team workflow, the unclosable cruft > seems to be a minor annoyance we just live with, but the volume we deal > with is relatively small and we've got informal ways to connect > our small number of internal reviewers and reviewees so the problem is > not hard for us to work around.
> For the patch pilot workflow, the volume is higher and the number of > reviewers broader, so I suspect a harder-to-make-things-disappear > issue might present as much if not more pain than the slot-stealing > glitch. This is my concern as well. An important part of patch piloting is identifying when a change is not ready for sponsorship, and sending it back to the submitter for revision. When this is done, it's on the submitter to re-submit it for sponsorship. If patch pilots have to track this, we are going to spend a lot of time polling MPs that are not ready for sponsorship. I think the least-effort approach is for the handling of MPs for sponsorship to match the handling of bugs: ~ubuntu-sponsors is unsubscribed, and it's the responsibility of the submitter to re-subscribe them (and patch pilots have an obligation to make this clear with a comment). A more clever approach would be to use a magic zero-member reviewer as Robie proposes, but to filter out any MPs from the sponsorship queue which have a negative review from a sponsor, and no further activity on the MP (either comments or commits) after that point. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
