Re: review process

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 12:04  PM, Phil Edwards wrote:

> Moving to gcc at  dot 

Whoops, didn't notice it was somewhere else.
:)

> 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).
I just wanted to make it explicit that i can't handle it otherwise.
My current view is that this is a pretty simple SQL application (using 
a new database and the bug database), like so:
1. Any mail with [PATCH] in the title that we can see a well-formed 
patch in gets inserted into the new db (indexed by subject and message 
id)
2. Any mail approvals/denials for that message delete the [PATCH] 
record from the new db and update the bug (closing it), if one exists 
in the bug db. Since approvals/rejections can come at any time, we may 
or may not have created the bug report yet.
3. Every night, a cron job runs, and anything still in the database 
that is 1 day old and has no bug report created, gets one created.

That should work, no?

> > 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.,
That would work, if it's amenable to people.


>     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