Is there a good reason that this process shouldn't be more automated or at
least changed? It seems like if people are submitting a lot of patches and
they aren't getting reviewed, and then they are getting discouraged, then
something is wrong with the process..
Maybe the code reviewers don't want to be deluged with automated requests
for reviews that are frivolous or should belong to another reviewer or
something, fair enough.. Perhaps bugzilla could be set up to send notice to
one specific person upon submission of a patch, and that person could
forward the request to the appropriate reviewer? I don't know.. it just
seems like just writing a patch is already pretty proactive, maybe there
could be more proactiveness on the other side with regards to getting the
changes reviewed and integrated.
Blake Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
9167gt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9167gt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> These keywords are meant to facilitate review; you should not depend on
> them. Owners of patches need to proactively seek review. Whenever I need
a
> code review, I e-mail the appropriate person and usually get a response
> within a couple days.
>
> --Blake
>
> "Henrik Gemal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A quick look into bugzilla reveals that there's around 125 bugs that are
> > open that has the "patch" and "review" keywords to it.
> > To me, a small Mozilla contributer, I think this is quite a lot. Some of
> > the patches attached are quite basic patches, but increasing the overall
> > Mozilla experience.
> > Around half are "NEW". Creating patches and just seeing these patches
> > get ignored are quite depressing.
> >
> > --
> > Henrik Gemal, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Webmail Evangelist
> > Tele Danmark Internet
> >
> > http://gemal.dk/card/
> >
> >
>
>
