"Bence Ferdinandy" <bence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Thanks everybody, especially Taylor, for keeping things going while
>> I was away. Unfortunately, we seem to have acquired way too many
>> topics that were posted and picked up without getting reviewed. As
>> we discussed a few months ago in <xmqqployf6z5.fsf@gitster.g>, I'll
>> start discarding topics that have seen no activities for 3 or more
>> weeks. Interested parties can of course revive these topics.
>
> [snip]
>
> Considering the above,
> ...
> and that this version of the series has been in for two weeks: is there
> something I should/can be doing so as not to hit the 3 week mark?
The "manual" to run the project on the maintainer side has this:
- If a topic that was picked up to 'seen' becomes and stays
inactive for 3 calendar weeks without having seen a clear
consensus that it is good enough to be moved to 'next', the
topic may be discarded from 'seen'. Interested parties are
still free to revive the topic. For the purpose of this
guideline, the definition of being "inactive" is that nobody
has discussed the topic, no new iteration of the topic was
posted, and no responses to the review comments were given.
If the topic has been updated large-ish-ly since the previous
rounds, it may deserve a fresh review, or the reviewers of the
previous rounds may find it sufficient that they judge based on the
change since the previous round (assuming that the earlier reviews
did a good job of hunting problems in the previous rounds). I do
not offhand know who read the topic and how big a course-change the
topic took during my absense, so hopefully somebody who is more
familiar with the latest round can chime in before I dig the topic
out from the bottom of my pile of backlog.
Thanks.
