On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Daniel Berlin wrote: > be, most things support it, and there are some cool possibilities, > like gerrit (http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/). It is precisely built
I think a critical feature of any fancy code review system (or of how it is configured for GCC) used for a significant amount of GCC review is that all the patches and reviews are automatically sent to gcc-patches in plain text so that they get archived in the static list archives and can continue to be referred to that way, grepped, etc., after the next N transitions. Email replies to patch submissions should also continue to work smoothly. Given these requirements, anyone can use or not use any code review system as they please. Bugzilla has worked very well in this regard in allowing multiple workflows (reading new submissions and comments through email and replying there / searching for past bugs and replying through the web interface). > to handle the problem of finding the right reviewers, making sure > patches don't fall through the cracks, while still making sure it's I believe (based on observation of what has been done so far) people will submit patches in any way possible, including several we do not advise at all such as attaching patches against a GCC 3.x release tarball to a bug in Bugzilla or sending those patches to gcc-bugs, and making sure patches don't fall through the cracks means detecting patches sent in all these ways and tracking their status. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
