What about some sort of script that detects MR older than x time without a
reviewer, and asks a group of people to take a look.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 19:36, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> I wonder if it would alleviate the concerns to have a ghc-maintainers
> mailing list. This is distinct from
I wonder if it would alleviate the concerns to have a ghc-maintainers mailing
list. This is distinct from ghc-devs, in that the maintainers have GHC as their
day job. It would explicitly invite email from folks struggling to figure out
how to contribute. I don't mean to create more mail for Ben
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:
> | If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
> | for a new contributors patch
> | then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new
> | contributors.
>
> Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong --
Matthew Pickering writes:
> If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
> for a new contributors patch then it doesn't seem to me that a project
> wants or values new contributors.
>
For what it's worth, I am happy to try to find reviewers for a
newcomer's patch.
Hi!
I have contributed a patch or two to GHC, so I guess I’m a reasonable example
of an newbie.
The step of nominating reviewers just wouldn’t work for me. I have no idea of
who in this project would be willing and able to give a review. Or who the
eligible reviewers are. Maybe I’d select
| If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
| for a new contributors patch
| then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new
| contributors.
Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to convey.
Thanks for highlighting it.
If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
for a new contributors patch
then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new contributors.
A maintainer can make a value judgement about a patch that is isn't
worth reviewing, but such
situations are exceedingly
