On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Andrew Lunn wrote:
Are you planning on posting these patches to the list for review?
Contributors generally post patches to the list (as is somewhat implied
in HACKING.md, and explicit on the website). From there, they shouldn't
need to do actively have to do anything, except respond to any emails if
needs be (though, resending if nothing at all is heard for months would
be a good idea).
On the integration side, at present these are tracked by patchwork. An
integrator applies them to a staging tree for a while, so people can
review it. People may ask the contributor questions about the patch and
suggest changes. The contributor should seek to answer those questions
and allay the reviewer's concerns (e.g. with a suggested change, or
explaining in as objective way as possible why question is not a concern
and thus persuading the reviewer). If there are no concerns the patch is
merged to master.
The integrator should make sure the contributor is notified of their
patch being staged and the outcome. Reviewers should make sure
contributors get their reviews. This is done by emailing them.
E.g., for this round/batch:
https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2016-June/015514.html
https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2016-June/015610.html
https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2016-July/015939.html
This process is currently batched, to make life easier for integrators
and for ease of testing.
The batching is meant to be time-limited. We were getting through about
a batch per month last year. We could probably get through a batch every
couple of weeks with pipe-lining.
This current batch is exceedingly large, in order to deal with a
historical backlog and a breakdown in the process earlier this year. It
may take a little longer to get done as a result. However, they
generally shouldn't take this long.
Is the patch submitter expected to repost them asking for review, in
order to get the needed ACKs?
The way it works at present is, the contributor deals with concerns if
and when they come up. If no concerns are stated then it goes in. So
there's no need for "ACKs".
There are people talking about adding ACKs. I'm not sure what the
benefit would be to that. No clear proposals have been put to the list
as yet.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | [email protected] | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
"And they told us, what they wanted...
Was a sound that could kill some-one, from a distance." -- Kate Bush
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
