From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F9E3C2D0E4 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:08:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5032242B for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:08:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="yaNiXiIu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729368AbgKTSIp (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:08:45 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:56067 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728260AbgKTSIo (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:08:44 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C8B8A72D; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:08:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Is5jBLBXm2ypNaebBhdJKAapoJo=; b=yaNiXi IudqRU7g+6HmECQVDsoDRmrRA70tQp2G+ztwcm2AWlk+rPxhgo5smimC6XUyd/A5 5RScwCmNVDRLxMuxs0bTxW1yoynyzbtUHMa6NQbxMQME/SzRpRupCDWcrVD0ZGlm P7Ku/WbXKrA3AbdwFVv6kg4K9bS5+HvcQ8eks= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=fRrPC96px3pPdBDGAdRPZIqJ4aIlDBPV yUhYiEvhl0d9vTUMHzKh7OK7RRQJSLPr15CNKJpxATx7NpHYNRnYnhlGivVtrrNP 5glAa0dBT8Qy9vAY9KJuKItgRT6vU8EoJHwft5W0ZlgaiK8F2m/5eiEcBX6GW/4n wsYRjCGL4pk= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7248A72B; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:08:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88B948A72A; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:08:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 28/27] tests: run tests omitted by PREPARE_FOR_MAIN_BRANCH References: <20201118114834.11137-1-avarab@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:08:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:09:06 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6BD1717E-2B5B-11EB-B084-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> Perhaps I should start to more aggressively drop topics from `seen` >> that are not sufficiently reviewed? The guiding principle ought to >> be "unreviewed patches are not worth applying", but I have a feeling >> that we have become more and more lax over time due to shortage of >> quality reviews. I dunno. > > FWIW I think you do a wonderful job of keeping the patch series in `seen`. > I wish we could keep the CI build passing a bit more, but I'd rather have > the branches that are in flight in one place, so that it is easy e.g. to > find out whether `git diff next..seen -- t/t9902\*` is empty (to determine > whether working on that script would cause conflicts right now). I have to disagree. There are a few topics, perhaps more than a few, that is age old in Git timescale nobody has bothered to ask the list why we still have it in 'seen' [*1*]. It may be a good thing to pick up as many potentially interesting new topics as possible and to merge them to 'seen' while resolving possible conflicts with other topics in flight. I am willing to continue doing so. But I doubt that a series lingering in 'seen' that has not been touched for more than say four weeks has much chance of gaining any new interest to push it forward. Perhaps we need a policy to discard a topic whose author timestamp is 8 weeks or older and not in 'next', without preventing those who care about the topic from resurrecting it in support, or something along that line. [Footnote] *1* The question can be asked in two ways. "Shouldn't it go 'next' already? I've read it over, here is the review and the thread shows a clear concensus that it is a good idea" is one happy outcome (even though that would indicate the maintainer doing a poor job). Alternatively, "Shouldn't it be discarded? Nobody seemed interested back then and now we have X instead, so it is not necessary." is also a possible happy outcome.