Re: Reviewers Was: Re: Fortran/PR19303 PATCH: Runtime selection ofrecord markers for unformatted sequential io

[Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Toon Moene wrote:
> Here's what I came up with (attached).

Wearing my wwwdocs hat, I've got some comments, but not many. ;-)

Some of the lines are a bit long, it would be good to avoid lines longer
than, say 75 or so, characters.

--- index.html	Thu Feb 24 19:51:06 2005
+ <li>All normal requirements for patch submission (testing, changelog entries, 
+ etc) still apply, and reviewers should ensure that these have been met before 
+ approving changes.</li>

I believe a link from "normal requirements" to contribute.html would be a
good idea.

+ <li>Approval should be necessary for patches which don't fall under the
+ obvious rule, so with this list put in place everybody (except maintainers)
+ should <b>still</b> seek approval for his/her patches.</li>

<em>still</em> or <strong>still</strong>

+ <li>Patches should only be reviewed by people who know the affected parts of
+ the compiler.  I.e. the reviewer has to be sure he/she knows stuff well enough to
+ make a good judgement.</li>

Listing this a special requirement here might be considered as an 
indication that this is generally not required?

+ <li>We are all reasonable people, and nobody is working under employer pressure
+ or needs an ego-boost badly, so in general we assume that noone
+ deliberately does anything stupid :-)</li>

Hmm, do we really need that?  There is some fun factor attached to that,
but I generally try to avoid this kind of statements and also try to
keep docs as short as possible.

Gerald