From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24505 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2014 18:37:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 24492 invoked by uid 89); 22 Apr 2014 18:37:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wi0-f178.google.com Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f178.google.com) (209.85.212.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:37:40 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id bs8so19195wib.17 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:37:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+rcBmjMUhmzDc8s6ozt9mryck+8IxSszJKCMQwXKo2k=; b=NTwc6OvU9J90nsW862VjMlG7pzl/kTbYuTQXzaV/Wzoti0mzRvZHxwUcNXLJ4LbMSc yetEZ6CwUKcOBR0kF8PWsS6mlm1V2ihgz4EeJe5tE6LLHNqfZF6O5sAAogA3Eo44mlad iZlQKg6rnOCMQmgmPrXVEY0/nwu86A5+wQjP3bnF9J51mKjmvfT/9789m/0v3dE6Rl8N TO5GQRDFZFuS78DC4LIEVHXdktsFPhAR2T5S98mR8U6ls4WvrStFiIbVSNYowrhoxR/C cAHW6plL4/CUJ0eN4K3ZuwGltvxyn2o1Z/1Rh+1vLqPzGS4kcsngnTurQ49zt9xb8+oL uJHw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7vNcl304NQb2NHh50a1Ctlm02Kdid2aGA9Vx+Q/2yxuLeHqKpdCgQH4+XV1QsHWG+t2B7vd1d37XJqgiKyVQNsgKP0+qnYIKhtywbqgvzyBwPwFfHyG2YW/u4E87sfD2Bd7VzaInCtNYlzXEcqmbFdp1iVgjQOrAa75iDpwERmBK0eabsI4Awec6SaiIsM4H39xOd MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.187.225 with SMTP id fv1mr72108wic.14.1398191857457; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.51.7 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:37:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140422155132.GB6383@adacore.com> References: <20140402100842.GA956@blade.nx> <533F3713.40700@earthlink.net> <20140417135040.GA891@blade.nx> <20140422130652.GG5790@adacore.com> <20140422155132.GB6383@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Patchwork patch tracking system From: Siva Chandra To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Eric Christopher , Gary Benson , Stan Shebs , "gdb@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> FWIW we (some of the google folk) looked at geritt for LLVM and >> discarded in favor of phabricator. It seemed to solve a lot of the >> problems that we had and allowed communication to and from the mailing >> lists for patches which was key for us as we have a similar review >> style to gcc/gdb/binutils. We didn't want to remove the ability for >> people to send patches to the mailing lists, but yet get a better >> review mechanism for large patches/queuing/etc. > > Thanks for the suggestion! I have to say, from the outside, > phabricator looks like a pretty interesting option. I am essentially an outsider here, and I have not used phabricator. However, the Chromium project uses Rietveld for codereview: https://code.google.com/p/rietveld/ and https://codereview.chromium.org/ IIRC, Diego Novillo setup a rietveld instance for GCC: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/rietveld Chromium-OS project uses gerrit and hence I have used both these tools and my personal choice is rietveld over gerrit by many a mile. Rietveld can be configured to send mails to a watchlist for every patch sent out for review and also for every review posting. Hence, all review logs can still be saved in a mailing list archive. Thanks, Siva Chandra