> Note: Each of these patches, individually, has a good reason for not
> being checked in as is - eg some aspect of the code needs to be fixed,
> or a feature is missing, or it's a sub-optimal implementation - so these
> aren't "bitrotting waiting for review" so much as "bitrotting waiting
> for minor fixups that somebody considers essential before they're
> checked in".
Then why is that anyone's problem other than the patch authors? It's
certainly not staff or reviewers' problem. If the patch has been
abandoned, feel free to grab it and drive it to checkin.
> I suppose the only solution is to encourage contributors (or
> contributors' employers) to specifically prioritize "minor fixups to an
> existing patch before it bitrots" over other work, even if the
> particular patch in question isn't a high priority to that contributor.
> Unfortunately, I don't see it happenning, or the monster 2800/87428
> would have been checked in shortly after 6.0 was released.
I have taken a strong personal interest in that pair of bugs, as you
know - I even took over the patch when the previous owner said he was
unwilling to make the requested changes. I do not remember any time when
there was a delay which was caused by lack of review or attention from
anyone other than the current author.
Gerv
