From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7458 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2003 19:41:48 -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 7451 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2003 19:41:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mtvmime01.veritas.com) (143.127.3.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 19:41:47 -0000 Received: from megami (unverified) by mtvmime01.veritas.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:44:06 -0800 Received: from veritas.com(ellen.veritas.com[10.180.88.137]) (1662 bytes) by megami via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:smart_host/T:smtp (sender: ) id for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:41:46 -0800 (PST) (Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #15 built 2001-Aug-30) Message-ID: <3E8899F6.53B05F77@veritas.com> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:07:00 -0000 From: Bruce Korb Reply-To: bkorb@veritas.com X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandre Oliva CC: GCC Development Subject: Re: Patch approval process suggestion References: <3E8880C1.506238C@veritas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01821.txt.bz2 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