Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64

From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: "Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Subbaraman Narayanamurthy" <subbaram@codeaurora.org>,
	"David Collins" <collinsd@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	"Daniel Thompson" <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	"David Airlie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
	"Guenter Roeck" <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	"Joe Perches" <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 08:15:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200521071505.GL271301@dell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200520231508.GA29437@codeaurora.org>

On Wed, 20 May 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:44:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against
> > > > things like flooding and spamming.  One of those protections is a
> > > > check for "Too many recipients to the message".  Most of the time this
> > > > simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and approval,
> > > > but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration.
> > > > 
> > > > The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large.
> > > > Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and
> > > > contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl?  If so, consider pruning
> > > > that a little.  Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent
> > > > changes to a file.  As someone who receives a lot of patches, I tend
> > > > to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a change X
> > > > years ago.  Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first
> > > > instance and see how far that takes you.
> > > 
> > > Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few patchsets
> > > and then when a few patches didn't get any attention, expanded the
> > > audience thus. Still, around 50% of the patches in this series remain
> > > unreviewed by anyone.
> > 
> > This isn't a reason to add more recipients (who are likely to care
> > even less than your original group).  However it *is* a good argument
> > for including all of the specified maintainers/reviewers in on all of
> > the patches.
> > 
> > > > If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible, maybe
> > > > just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by every
> > > > ML.  It's still much more useful for the correct people to have
> > > > visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times.
> > > 
> > > Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors from the
> > > Cc-list and add all parties to all patches.
> > 
> > Great.  Once you've done that, we can start to help you acquire the
> > Acks you need on your remaining patches.
> 
> Hi Lee, Thierry, Uwe,
> 
> In v14 of this patchset I've pruned the list of contributors, removed
> past contributors from the cc-list, and added all parties to all patches
> (except for the patches that are yet to reviewed, for which I've added
> what get_maintainer.pl showed me). I've also resent v14 a couple of
> times already, with around a week's time interval between resends, and
> somehow it seems like this set has lost traction.
> 
> Could you please indicate what next steps I should take to have more
> eyes on the unreviewed patches? Only 4 out of 11 patches remain
> unreviewed.

Looks like we're waiting on Thierry (again).

This has been a common theme over the past few months.

Perhaps he has changed employer/project?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog