Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> 2) Introduce a new patch management system. I suggest a web interface
>> through which patches be submitted. This would assign them an ID number,
>> and forward them to the patches list. The system would track any
>> responses to the initial email, logging the thread automatically and
>> making it available through the web interface. Posts from
>> trusted/experienced developers might be highlighted so that committers
>> can see at a glance if any of the more experienced guys have commented
>> on the patch yet. A status flag could easily include a status flag to
>> mark them as "won't accept", "committed", "under review" or "under
>> revision". If left at "under review" for too long, the patch might be
>> highlighted, and if at "under revision" for too long, the patch author
>> might be automatically requested to send a status report.
>
> It would be interesting if such a system could be made to work simply,
> but I am afraid that isn't possible. What happens now is that as people
> post email comments about the patches, I add the emails to the patches
> queue.
This what I propose to automate.
> It would be interesting to put comments on the patches
> themselves, but in many cases the opinions about patches are too candid
> to put in public so committers email each other to give status reports.
Any out of band discussion (between you and Tom for example) would
presumably be summarised on list anyway by one or other of you. There
would be no reason I could see to need to be any more candid than to
reject a patch outright, giving a list of reasons why - all of which can
and should be public. If you feel a need to vent about the author for
any other reason, well, thats why we have pubs in the UK :-).
Regards, Dave