* Re: Patch approval process suggestion
[not found] ` <orllyvqqxk.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
@ 2003-03-31 20:07 ` Bruce Korb
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Bruce Korb @ 2003-03-31 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Oliva; +Cc: GCC Development
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'd much rather keep current state of affairs, and track patches
> awaiting approval by looking for `Ok to install?' or just `Ok?' in
> their bodies. This would automatically rule out patches posted (and
> installed) by maintainers with global write privileges, and follow-up
> patches to messages that approved patches conditioned to minor
> changes.
I don't deal with this stuff on a daily basis, so it's more your call.
I was just imagining really elaborate schemes that would wind up
buggy or unimplemented. I suggested a key phrase at the start 'cuz
then this message wouldn't trigger an approval check, even if it were
containing a sample patch. :-) (It contains "Ok?" and "Ok to install?",
*plus* 'Patch' in the subject. ;) Main suggestion: keep requests simple
and unambiguous, and reduce responses to a mouse click and a simple form.
A "good thing" for those of who are time constrained (or lazy).
Cheers - Bruce
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2003-03-31 19:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <3E8880C1.506238C@veritas.com>
[not found] ` <orllyvqqxk.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
2003-03-31 20:07 ` Patch approval process suggestion Bruce Korb
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).