Subject: Re: [boost] Lack of response to pull requests [resend]
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-13 12:45:34
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Beman Dawes
> Sent: 13 May 2014 14:22
> To: Boost Developers List
> Subject: [boost] Lack of response to pull requests [resend]
> IMO it should be a Boost policy that anyone who submits a pull request
> response within a reasonable period of time.
> *What is a "response"?*
> GitHub pull requests have a "Comment" mechanism, so that's the best mechanism
> it ensures reaching the submitter even they don't read the developer list. We
> need to delineate some common responses, but that can wait until the overall
> is agreed upon.
Trac should remain the method of signalling that a fix is in progress/done.
> *What is a "reasonable period of time"?*
> This may be a bit of a bike shed discussion since whatever we start with may
> adjustment based on experience. Would two weeks be a good starting point?
A bit short? - people can be away on business or holiday for two weeks.
> *Who should step in if there is no response from the library maintainer?*
> The Community Maintenance Team IMO is the logical choice. A pull request that
> does not receive a timely response may be an early warning sign that the
> involved does not have an active maintainer. The CMT folks are interested
> maintenance and already have processes to review pull requests.
> This would be an expansion of their mandate, and details need to be worked out
> such as what happens if the library maintainer is just busy at the moment.
CMT should have write access to all libraries - as before.
(It all worked fine before when every library author had global write access -
on an 'honor' system).
My 2 p ...
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 01539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk