Re: Patch bumping (was Re: Feature Patch: Use completion to view parameter values)

[Marlon <marlon.richert@xxxxxxxxx>]

> On 12 Apr 2021, at 00:24, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> With appreciation for Lawrence's efforts, I'd respectfully request
> that the criteria for when to send a "bump" become a matter of record.
> 
> There seem to me to be these cases:
> 
> 1.  The patch has never been reviewed or discussed.
> 2.  The patch was reviewed and is acceptable, but was never applied.
> 3.  There was a discussion, but it ended without resolution.
> 4.  The patch was referred back to the author after review or discussion.
> 
> There is room for subjective interpretation of "is acceptable".  A
> possible resolution of #2 is that the patch is rejected after all
> (perhaps it has become obsolete in the meantime).
> 
> I mention this mostly because I think the useful elapsed time before
> "bumping" might be different in each case.  In particular #4 seems
> like it could be left considerably longer, unless the patch is fixing
> a serious bug or security issue.
> 
> Thoughts?

I would suggest the following minimum wait times before bumping:

* To remind about an unresolved patch (not yet reviewed, not yet responded to by author after review, not yet accepted/rejected/committed, etc.):
  * security issues: 2 days
  * critical bug fixes: 1 week
  * all other patches: 2 weeks
* Everything else: 1 month

Additionally, it would be helpful if committers remember to inform us when a when a patch has been accepted/rejected/applied, to avoid unnecessary bumps.