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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Issue / Pulls timers
Precedence: list

> 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 other "tracker" applications, outdated issues first initiate an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 report -- that describes the policy, why the policy (closing outdated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.