Re: (low priority) comment about "patchwork"

[Paul Simmons <mbatranch@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1599 bytes --]

On 1/24/25 07:55, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> Thanks for your curiosity, but things are not as bad as it sounds.
>
> Yes, there are loads of patches that are sort of abandoned, but that does not mean that there was any work wasted or that we have a huge backlog.
>
> There are probably some patches that were never intended to be merge - as a request for comments; some patches have probably been modified when merged so Patchwork might have failed to pick up the changes and that is why the patch remains “unmerged" on there; and there might have been patches that were once submitted, changes were required and the submitter never came back. It happens.
>
> There is probably a lot more stuff somewhere else that has not even made it onto the list.
>
> What is sparking your curiosity?
>
> -Michael
>
>> On 22 Jan 2025, at 18:16, Paul Simmons <mbatranch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I notice that "https://patchwork.ipfire.org/project/ipfire/list/" with selections "State = Action Required" and "Archived = No" has grown to 1230+ patches, many of which are very old (pre- 2024, and pre- Core191).
>> Is this intentional?  Please don't interrupt your development flows to investigate...  I'm only curious.
>> Many thanks,
>> P

Hello, Michael.  Thanks for the reply!

I'm just "hyphenated" (is the term "anal-retentive" hyphenated?), and 
wondered if patchwork was having difficulties :)
I'll go on about my business, "fret no more", and "endeavor to persevere".

I give thanks to "all y'all" for your efforts!

P

PS: Core190 update was very smooth!