From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6750 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2003 18:45:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6742 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2003 18:45:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 18:45:36 -0000 Received: from twcny.rr.com (syr-24-24-17-134.twcny.rr.com [24.24.17.134]) by ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2VIjaSg018004 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:45:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E888CC5.1010807@twcny.rr.com> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:52:00 -0000 From: Nathanael Nerode User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: review process Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01816.txt.bz2 Daniel Berlin said: >If our problem is really in reviewing significant patches (ie i'm >assuming we aren't dropping 3 line patches on the floor, and that >people just approve these while reading through email regularly), we >could track those that aren't approved in a day through bugzilla. I was certainly under the impression that we were also dropping 3-line patches on the floor. --Nathanael