Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
2) Introduce a new patch management system. I suggest a web interface
through which patches be submitted. This would assign them an ID number,
and forward them to the patches list. The system would track any
responses to the initial email, logging the thread automatically and
making it available through the web interface. Posts from
trusted/experienced developers might be highlighted so that committers
can see at a glance if any of the more experienced guys have commented
on the patch yet. A status flag could easily include a status flag to
mark them as "won't accept", "committed", "under review" or "under
revision". If left at "under review" for too long, the patch might be
highlighted, and if at "under revision" for too long, the patch author
might be automatically requested to send a status report.
this sounds like trying to reinvent a real bugtracking system with an
email interface ...
I think the angle of this suggestion is to approach things from the
perspective of trying to automate more according to how people are
currently working instead of shoehorning an existing solution. It seems
that most folks on -hackers prefer email based systems. The proposals
sounds like it would not change anything much for people who choose to
ignore the web interface and as such it has some appeal to it.
regards,
Lukas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
