Re: Comments on Patching GCC

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Laurent GUERBY wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 20:50, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > If patch attachments are to be used as a standard means of patch
> > submission for review, then Bugzilla should automatically send those
> > attachments - in plain text and in the body of the message, not a separate
> > MIME part - to gcc-patches, so they can readily be quoted in replies etc..
>
> While I agree that bugzilla should offer the option to the submitter to
> flag a patch and comment so it is sent to gcc-patches, I do not see any
> reason not to use attachments if it makes the live of bugzilla
> developpers easier.
>
> There was lots of discussion of email clients, I assume that a great
> majority of people on this list use clients with decent facilities
> for handling attachments (which hopefully also cure the
> line wrapping stuff that often mangles patch in body).
>
> With a few patch tracking keywords (eg: patch-testing-requested,
> patch-review-requested, patch-needs-improvement, patch-accepted,
> patch-approved-with-trivial-change, patch-rejected),

YOu don't need keywords for these, you can actually add flags to 
attachments, request that a flag be set, etc.

< it might also
> help the reviewer job and may be provide a few helpful statistics
> for the GCC project as a whole.
>
> Laurent