Re: Patch review process

Andrew Cagney
2001-06-13T13:02:00Z

> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 01:14:38PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>>The other one is a way of better tracking patches. At present, in the
>>end, it is still me using my mailbox for manual processing.
>
>
> Didn't we discuss tracking patches in the PR database at one point?

It tripped up when testing revealed that you couldn't reliably extract a
patch. I think it is also a hack, it lacks the tight integration that
some other systems have.

To smoke something bad, I'd really like:

$ gdb-patches submit
$
BIFF: from gdb-patches
Patch rejected:
Error 101: Sorry Dave, I can't do that, you've used basename() instead of
basename()
Error 406: This doesn't compile with -Werror
Error 555: This causes a testsuite regression
$
$ gdb-patches ls
1: Chris Faylor foo.diff
2: Cagney bar.diff

$ gdb-patches cat 1 | more
.
,
,

$ gdb-patches approve 1
Patch foo.diff applied and committeed.

other systems do let me do this sort of thing.

I guess, the question is. Is it less of a hack than we have now?

Andrew