On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:59:30 -0700, Markus Roberts wrote: > > >Yes, we looked into it, but none of the tools are that great, and we > > > decided that if we had to compromise between slightly better tools and > > far better community participation (which is what on-list review gets > > us), then community was an easy choice. > > > > If anyone does know of a great tool (or even wants to suggest an incremental > improvement) we'd love to hear it. > > -- M > ----------------------------------------------------------- > The power of accurate observation is > commonly called cynicism by those > who have not got it. ~George Bernard Shaw > ------------------------------------------------------------ >
I'd be in favor of requesting that people include a link to a GitHub (or other publicly available Git repo) branch that has the patches they're mailing to the list. This should make it easier for people to pull down the code to "properly" review it, without making people setup a work-flow that allows them to save the patches, and apply them using git-am, or making them jump through hoops to get their code/comments into the "review system". I'd prefer to not split the reviews/comments between the mailing list and another system, especially since I don't think you can properly review code through a web interface (or a mail client). If the perceived problem is "proper" code reviews not being done, then adding "git fetch"able information to the cover letter, or between the "---", and the diffstat should help address this. If the perceived problem is patches getting "lost", then perhaps something like Patchwork[1] would help keep a birds-eye-view of what's going on. Alternatively: Better integration between the mailing list, and the issue tracker. [1] http://ozlabs.org/~jk/projects/patchwork/ -- Jacob Helwig
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
