From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Patch review process
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:02:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B27C6B8.70205@cygnus.com>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010613185614.19790F-100000@is> <3B279F7E.4050405@cygnus.com> <20010613142900.A9723@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00264.html

> 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