On 01/03/2021 14:47, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > 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. Hmm, I consider a fix important if without it the driver can break or cause wrong results during normal operation. So not cleanup patches or error handling patches. In any case, I'd rather get some extra 'ping' reminders, than that I forget an important patch. In general I'm fine with 'pings' after a week. Regards, Hans > > Thanks, > Mauro >
