Community-Help for the core-team in deadline-times

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi Richard,

Yeah there are more statuses that would be used than my quick example.  We
could use the statuses we defined in betterev as a starting point.

Cheers,
Martijn

On Friday, 20 November 2015, Richard Warburton <richard.warburton at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think you need to differentiate between "accepted" and "merged". These
> are different things and may take some time.
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','martijnverburg at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sebastian,
>>
>> I completely agree!  There was a proposal from this group to build a patch
>> review/tracking system for OpenJDK, but it did not gain widespread
>> support.  What this group could perhaps do is split up the mailing lists
>> and have at least one of us watching all of the mailing list for new
>> contributors and making sure that their contributions don't get
>> lost/ignored.
>>
>> We could set up a simple table in the Wiki with name vs mailing list and
>> have the results of the monitoring reported back here and see what sort of
>> numbers we get in a quarter.
>>
>> So I'm thinking something like:
>>
>> Martijn Verburg  - net-dev - Q1 2016 - 5 patches submitted, 3 accepted, 1
>> rejected due to technical reasons and 1 delayed for more than 14 days due
>> to lack of core committers.
>> Mani Sarkar - core-libs-dev - Q1 2016 - 18 patches submitted, 12 under
>> discussion, 4 accepted, 2 rejected due to technical reasons
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martijn
>>
>> On 20 November 2015 at 13:44, Sebastian Sickelmann <
>> sebastian.sickelmann at gmx.de
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sebastian.sickelmann at gmx.de');>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > a few days ago i had a chat with Martijn about the actual response-times
>> > for requests to review and discussion.
>> >
>> > It seems to be that the observed slower response in the last weeks are
>> > due to javaone, devoxx and the nearing Feature-Complete (FC) date.
>> > see http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk9/ for details.
>> >
>> > I think it is totally clear that these three events are one reason why
>> > requests for review and discussion are taking a little bit longer, and
>> > to clear things up, I am totally fine with this. Even if i ask for
>> > "help" at this list a few days ago, I am not slowed down in my
>> > enthusiasm for OpenJDK by this.
>> >
>> > The problem could be that some fresh contributors could get a wrong
>> > image in such times.
>> >
>> > I would like to help in such times by answering (long unanswered)
>> > requests by helping contentual where possible or just with the
>> > explanation why it could take some extra time to get an contentual
>> > answer. And maybe some readers of adoption-discuss can help in some way
>> > too.
>> >
>> > I think you also have some additional ideas, what could be done in such
>> > times from the community. Could you please answer to this mail and write
>> > about your ideas?
>> >
>> > Your thoughts are also very welcome if you think that this type of help
>> > I would offer is not advisable
>> > <https://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/advisable.html>, or any other
>> > thoughts you have about this topic.
>> >
>> > An naturally the helpers in such a program need to know the
>> > "near-deadline/bigEvent-work-weeks" to prepare/organise helping. Ideas
>> > of how we can get this information is very welcome.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Sebastian
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> regards,
>
>   Richard Warburton
>
>   http://insightfullogic.com
>   @RichardWarburto <http://twitter.com/richardwarburto>
>


-- 
Cheers, Martijn (Sent from Gmail Mobile)