public inbox for systemtap@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vara Prasad <prasadav@us.ibm.com>
To: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>
Cc: systemTAP <systemtap@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: bug-fix reviews [was: Bug 4930]
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:27:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46EAEC2B.7050105@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1189796924.3774.29.camel@dyn9047018096.beaverton.ibm.com>

Jim Keniston wrote:

>On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 08:08 -0700, Vara Prasad wrote:
>  
>
>>Wenji Huang wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>   Regarding to bug 4930, I created patches for it 
>>>(http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4930).
>>>   Please kindly review it. If no objection, I will commit it.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Wenji
>>>      
>>>
>>Can we follow/change our review process to that of kernel where patch is 
>>posted inline in the mailing list for review instead of posting/placing 
>>elsewhere? I am hoping having patches readily available in the mail 
>>client improves our review process and avoids costly mistakes.
>>
>>bye,
>>Vara Prasad
>>    
>>
>
>It's definitely appropriate to attach the patch to the bugzilla.  To get
>a review, you either need to ensure that appropriate reviewers are on
>the bugzilla's cc list, or explicitly request a review, as Wenji has
>done.  I don't find it inconvenient to follow a couple of links to get
>at the patch.
>
>I prefer to see review accomplished via the bugzilla mechanism, so that
>the thread is captured in the bugzilla.  Of course, this typically
>restricts visibility of the review thread to the bug owner and the
>bugzilla's cc list.  Pro: Uninterested people aren't bothered with
>extraneous emails.  Con: (a) A relevant reviewer may be excluded from
>the cc list.  (b) If the review thread forks off a thread that warrants
>wider participation, somebody has to take the trouble to move that
>thread out of the bugzilla.
>
>Jim
>
>  
>

Well, review comments thread can be accomplished via mailing list as 
well hence i don't see any advantage of doing it in the bugzilla. There 
are lot more people looking at the mailing list then just bugs and 
excluding them from the review to me is a big disadvantage. Coming to 
providing a link to bugzilla and asking for review still has the draw 
back of traversing the link. I think following the common open source 
methodology of reviewing the patches in the mailing list gives us better 
chance of good reviews and we don't have to ask developers to learn a 
new process.

bye,
Vara Prasad

  reply	other threads:[~2007-09-14 20:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-09-14 15:09 Bug 4930 Wenji Huang
2007-09-14 17:21 ` Vara Prasad
2007-09-14 20:17   ` bug-fix reviews [was: Bug 4930] Jim Keniston
2007-09-14 22:27     ` Vara Prasad [this message]
2007-09-15  0:17       ` Jim Keniston

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=46EAEC2B.7050105@us.ibm.com \
    --to=prasadav@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=jkenisto@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=systemtap@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).