Re: review process

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Dan" == Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

Dan> 1. Be okay with the idea that any patch not submitted in a reasonable
Dan>    format (IE changelog + patch in message, or changelog in message +
Dan>    attached file with patch), and with [PATCH] in the subject line,
Dan>    wouldn't be tracked.

I prefer getting patches with embedded ChangeLog entries that have
been processed with Alexandre Oliva's clcleanup script.  This makes it
simpler for me to apply patches that span multiple directories.  So
I'd like it if we didn't have to require that the ChangeLog entry
appear in the body of the message.

Dan> 3. Standardize the text + possible placement of approval messages.

I think the benefits of automated patch tracking are definitely worth
it, even if it means a new rule or two.  Plus, those of us with
programmable mailers can automate.

I'd also like a way to associate a given commit with an entry in the
patch database.  Then we could track the `applied' state in addition
to the `approved' state.  Ideally this would happen automatically
somehow, but I know that's asking a lot.

It would also be nice if followups on the mailing list were recorded
in (or linked to from) the patch database entry.  Then someone looking
at the patch database could immediately see the discussion, if there
was one.

Tom