This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: review process


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]