From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15459 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 13:34:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15435 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 13:34:55 -0000 Subject: Re: Patch policy From: Gary Thomas To: Andrew Lunn Cc: eCos Maintainers In-Reply-To: <20030506132550.GK24032@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> References: <1052225944.30126.4370.camel@hermes> <20030506132550.GK24032@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: MLB Associates Message-Id: <1052228094.30126.4510.camel@hermes> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 13:34:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 07:25, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > In an ideal world, patches from outside our group would > > be posted to a database which could be queried by anyone. > > Maybe the easiest way to do this would be to forward the > > patch to BugZilla. > > Sounds like a reasonable idea. Let bugzilla pick the default owner of > the patch depending on the component. We would probably want to add > more HAL components, one per architecture. > > The messy thing is getting the patch from ecos-patches into > bugzilla. I don't see it being done automagically. Do we have to > retrain all contributers to use bugzilla instead of the list? Does one > of us have to import the patch? > This is policy that we would have to develop (decide on). One way would be to only accept patches via BugZilla. Then the onus would be on the submitter. To make this policy work, maybe we'd want to have the default owner of the "bug" be the patches list, or at least send a copy there. Anyway, it's just an idea that I think we can mull over a bit. -- Gary Thomas MLB Associates