Hi Jonas, you're more than welcome, and don't hesitate to ask questions if you're struggling with something.
I would recommend to focus on what's in `src/rdiffbackup` (new code) rather than what's in `src/rdiff_backup` (old code), even though currently the two are entangled. And, of course, there is documentation, even though it's neither complete nor perfect. KR, Eric On 28/11/2021 17:42, Jonas Schöpf wrote: > Hi Eric! > > First of all, thank you for all the work you put into rdiff-backup! I > love this tool! > > Last time you wrote an email about lack of reviewers, I took a look at > the PRs, but couldn't decide anything about them as I lack knowledge of > the implementation. > > I "watch" the repo now and try to find some time to look at the code > such that in the future I might be somehow more helpful for this project :) > > Cheers, > Jonas > > > On 11/10/21 06:50, Eric L. Zolf wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I don't want to sound like a broken record but I have again a pull >> request [1] waiting for review and nobody takes care. >> >> Our contribution guide states that "Ideally each pull request gets some >> feedback within 24 hours from it having been filed" and we're far from >> it. I'm also tired of begging for review. >> >> For this reason, I'll stop begging and will merge my own PRs after a >> little while (24h-48h, perhaps more if the PR isn't blocking me). Not >> exactly development best practice, but anybody disagreeing is free to >> commit to provide timely feedback to PRs, and I'll happily support them >> in this endeavor. >> >> Thanks for your attention, Eric >> >> [1] https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/pull/632 >> >