From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.68.1601313379504636411 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:16:19 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=CI3aVILa; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 63.128.21.124, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1601313378; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gZ7pj4oR24K1DfiJpppgjsozM9S2uwt/MxRyo+HIEm8=; b=CI3aVILaUrwWqYpvZ/DAWBZYQCUGRtMoc+PSYgmNgxJK413wwOPmf+EpOlqmF/F4pMqJSN BPPyb0ItEzZhl0fRsnD2S/7DBe5OStNOpBiE5AP7jtQf7rwP8SaLLKDedMTsKwUxDGIwGN rKaaZqMsWvD3fensDi0QwdsMQgL+zdk= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-324-548KaZDqMMK_HyCT4MF1VQ-1; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:16:14 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 548KaZDqMMK_HyCT4MF1VQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24156F6A0E; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:15:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-138.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.138]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A9E1002D42; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:15:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOWbnuWkjTogW2VkazItZGV2ZWxdIFRpYW5vY29yZSBjb21tdW5pdHkgcGFnZSBvbiB3aG8gd2UgYXJlIC0gcGxlYXNlIHJldmlldw==?= To: gaoliming , devel@edk2.groups.io, jiewen.yao@intel.com, "'Guptha, Soumya K'" , announce@edk2.groups.io Cc: "'Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)'" , "'Kinney, Michael D'" , 'Andrew Fish' References: <16383D375E5994D7.27235@groups.io> <005f01d69476$81768bd0$8463a370$@byosoft.com.cn> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:15:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <005f01d69476$81768bd0$8463a370$@byosoft.com.cn> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Liming, On 09/27/20 04:32, gaoliming wrote: > Guidelines for a Maintainer. Never let a pending request get older than a > calendar week. This requirement is too strict to the maintainer or reviewer. > The maintainer or reviewer should try to give the response in one week. But, > they may not fully review one patch set in one week, es for the feature or > the complex change. This requirement is about providing initial feedback. In other words, about starting the review. It's very important to provide initial feedback within a week. I agree that more time than a week may be necessary for finishing / completing a review. "Letting a pending request get older than a week" means that there is zero response within a week. If there is some response (albeit possibly incomplete), then things are good. Thanks Laszlo