Re: review process

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

Moving to gcc at  dot 


On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 11:06:50AM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> If we could
> 1. Be okay with the idea that any patch not submitted in a reasonable 
> format (IE changelog + patch in message, or changelog in message + 
> attached file with patch), and with [PATCH] in the subject line, 
> wouldn't be tracked.

This seems obvious.

> 2. Be okay with the idea that: patches approved by people without 
> reasonable mailers (reasonable being those that can tell us whether a 
> message is a reply to another message), when it's not easily detectable 
> otherwise, will be assumed to not be approved.

There are only two or three people in the MAINTAINERS file that have
mailers like this.  This sounds good too (democracy at work).


> 3. Standardize the text + possible placement of approval messages.
> 
> then I'm pretty sure i could auto-track missed patches.
> 
> But it's worthless if we can't detect already-approved patches, thus 
> the need to come up with a format for approval messages.
> 
> Obviously, i don't need something in some strict format, I just need to 
> be able to determine that a given message containing patch was approved 
> (or approved with changes, etc).  Thus, simply saying that approval 
> messages should contain a line starting with "approved".

Most such systems also have a "stop processing" keyword or phrase, e.g.,

    approved
    thankyou

    J.Random User wrote:
    > Here's my patch, yadda yadda yadda.

    Please also consider a followup patch that makes this work on platforms
    which do not necessarily obey the laws of physics during runtime loading.


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams