From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19493 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2003 07:47:26 -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 19478 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2003 07:47:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 07:47:26 -0000 Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2V7kXxi023284; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:46:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:08:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Fergus Henderson cc: Phil Edwards , Mark Mitchell , Gabriel Dos Reis Subject: Re: review process In-Reply-To: <20030331062256.GA6493@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au> Message-ID: References: <1049055987.31893.378.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> <1049059174.31893.385.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> <1049059963.7575.391.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> <1049060738.31975.394.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> <20030331041419.GA4687@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au> <20030331060732.GA10362@disaster.jaj.com> <20030331062256.GA6493@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01792.txt.bz2 [ gcc-patches -> gcc; please omit the former when replying! ] On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Fergus Henderson wrote: >>> - define a new category of "self-approve" developers? > Well, the difference is that you're only allowed to approve your own > patches, not someone else's patches. The intent here is to create > a new position which is less trusted than a normal "maintainer", > and whose approval powers are thus significantly limited -- > limited to only approving their own patches, only after these patches > have been reviewed by another human, and only after a one-week delay. So, wouldn't it be more natural, in some way, to have maintainers that may approve all patches _but_ their own? (I'm not sure how well reviews by arbitrary third parties would work, both procedurally and related to quality.) Managing droped patches using Bugzilla sounds like a good idea, and in fact I have suggested it at least twice in the past. My message at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-03/msg01529.html essentially has all three suggestions which came up in this thread, BTW. :-> Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/