On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:46 PM, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Ken Thomases <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Aug 25, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote: >> >>> "Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Alexandre Julliard >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> patchwatcher should watch for replies on wine-devel, and >>>>> link the reply to the patch >>>> >>>> Yes. The other similar patchwatching systems I found do this, >>>> and ours should, too. >>>> >>>>> and mark the patch as needing further action on the submitter's >>>>> part. >>>> >>>> Even if the message says "Great job!"? >>> >>> Sure, that's not the usual case. In most cases when a patch gets a >>> reply >>> it's because it will need changes. There could of course be a way >>> for a >>> submitter to mark the patch as still valid, but the first action >>> should >>> be to take the patch off the list of committable patches. >> >> Perhaps replies meant to approve of a patch could include a special >> textual directive to indicate that patchwatcher shouldn't block the >> patch. Something like: >> >> #patchwatcher approve >> >> Such a directive would only be recognized if it's alone on a line. >> > > The usual positive reply is 'ACK'. I believe it would be simplest to > grep the reply message for ACK to see if a reply is positive. > > -- > James Hawkins >
It might be useful if the patch emails themselves contained the patchwatcher documentation. If the mail server could append some instructions onto the patch email we could add some simple directions on how to reply to the patch with an ack etc. Chris
