Em Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:27:39 +0100 Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > Hi Mauro, > Thanks for your review. I'm addressing the points on a v5. Yet, there's one that, IMHO, we should elaborate more, if we add it to the doc: > > +Provided that your patch is at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org, it should > > +be sooner or later handled, so you don't need to re-submit a patch. > > + > > +Except for bug fixes, we don't usually add new patches to the development > > +tree between -rc6 and the next -rc1. > > + > > +Please notice that the media subsystem is a high traffic one, so it > > +could take a while for us to be able to review your patches. Feel free > > +to ping if you don't get a feedback in a couple of weeks or to ask > > +other developers to publicly add Reviewed-by and, more importantly, > > +Tested-by tags. > > What I have noticed is that sometimes important bug fixes are missed due > to the high traffic volume. I would like to see something along the lines of: > > "If important bug fixes are not reviewed or picked up within a week of posting, > then do not hesitate to ping." I see your point, but "important" is relative ;-) I mean, a bug is almost always important for the one reporting it. It doesn't necessarily means that such bug is visible by others or if the subsystem's core has a serious bug. IMO, if we add a paragraph like that, we should better explain what "important" means. Thanks, Mauro
