On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:52:27AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:14:24AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > And what's wrong for one maintainer will be right for another, and > > vice versa. > Ok, so what's wrong with "should not expect any feedback during the > merge window"? AFAICT the original complaint wasn't about people expecting feedback during the merge window, it was about people sending things at all which is a different thing. > And besides, when one starts working with maintainers, one soon learns > when they are the busiest and can refrain from sending patchsets then. Or if that even makes a difference of course. > I see your point that different maintainers can be busy at different > times but you also have to acknowledge the desire of some maintainers > not to get new patchsets during the merge window. So we have to have a > way to communicate that to submitters so that no explosions happen. I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about when we advise people; the advice about allowing for people being busy or otherwise unavailable applies pretty much all the time - one of the most common process problems I see is people expecting quick turnaround times, it'd be really good to set expecations there and it seems hard to go wrong. Not posting at all is a bit different, though, and is much more maintainer specific - personally I'm in the opposite camp to Thomas and would rather people just sent things whenever so I can get round to them as I have time rather than getting everyone sending things at once.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
