This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: review process
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>, Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Date: 31 Mar 2003 16:32:51 -0300
- Subject: Re: review process
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <C8237DA1-6392-11D7-8FBD-000393575BCC@dberlin.org>
On Mar 31, 2003, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org> wrote:
> 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".
Why is it so important to tell whether a patch was approved or not?
It seems to me that it would be enough to use the presence of a
follow-up as an heuristics. If there's a follow-up, it's either
approval, rejection, conditional approval or discussion that will end
up with either a revised patch or a late approval/rejection. So it
appears to me that the only case that really matters to detect patches
that didn't get a review is that of a patch that didn't get any
followup whatsoever. False positives can always be corrected by the
person who posted the patch originally, sending a new `Ok to install?'
message.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva at {redhat dot com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva at {lsd dot ic dot unicamp dot br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer