Re: (low priority) comment about "patchwork"

[Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1195 bytes --]

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