1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <ampedal@gmail.com>) id 1R6Ce3-0003vP-7P
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:34:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.175; envelope-from=ampedal@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qy0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-qy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R6Ce2-0004W9-JX
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:34:43 +0000
Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10so4515017qyk.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.51.136 with SMTP id d8mr90961qcg.38.1316572475479; Tue, 20
Sep 2011 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.227.137 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpdF88tTHOT40=-9enrb4hsekexELSrctdHDK8QqWxGVXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0fb63-zObvzirU1T6-xQnKc4=Ly2go5BBF9Q0XjqAc3o8V7A@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpdF88tTHOT40=-9enrb4hsekexELSrctdHDK8QqWxGVXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:34:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL0fb60XRvgSxL6OPQ0r_tK5RvCny_B8ECU7VCk8D9RJcU3Q2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Waters <ampedal@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(ampedal[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1R6Ce2-0004W9-JX
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Issue / Pulls timers
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:34:43 -0000
> We need to avoid a user/contributor experience of: =A0"my pull request
> was abruptly closed with no warning"
I agree, I definitely want to go about this in a non-jerk way. I would
be pissed if I spent hours coding something, and it was put on the
back burner and eventually closed (especially without notice). The
wording and process could use refinement.
> Contributors might not track the state of the tree on a day-to-day
> basis. =A0Thus, following the example of bugzilla.redhat.com and many
> other "tracker" applications, outdated issues first initiate an
> automated warning email -- usually by adding a comment to the bug
> report -- that describes the policy, why the policy (closing outdated
> reports) exists, and how to avoid automated report closure.
I can definitely do this, and give a wordy notice before I start the
timer. I will write up a message that links to a rebase walkthrough
(any suggestions? I think Gavin has one somewhere...), I would like it
to be more detailed than GitHub's walk-through.
My main reason for pushing this is that it will help clear out some of
the older pulls/issues that exist right now. I'm hoping that in the
future, the QA process will be good enough that pulls/issues won't
fall behind from lack of testing - and the timers will be used very
sparingly. It should only be in place to sort out the pulls/issues
that the majority doesn't want included in the client.
|
