> -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph S. Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:51 PM > To: Ian Lance Taylor > Cc: Basile STARYNKEVITCH; GCC Mailing List > Subject: Re: increasing the number of GCC reviewers > > > At the human level I suspect it would help to have people who > watch for > submissions from non-regulars (including those attached to > Bugzilla) and > help them prepare patches following all the usual conventions > and get them > reviewed (checking for copyright assignments at an early > stage as needed) > and make sure the submissions don't get lost. At the > technical level, > while submissions on gcc-patches take a wide variety of > forms, approvals > are more restricted; it ought to be possible for software to do a > reasonably good job of tracking which submissions have been > reviewed / > approved / committed (including noticing people trying to > submit patches > through Bugzilla), and of identifying the most likely > relevant maintainers > to review patches, aided by humans in keeping the data clean.
>From my experience having patches go to a mailing list is a sure way to have >them get lost. When it goes into someone's inbox, it's likely to get pushed >down, and "out of sight, out of mind" quickly. While the ML is archived, it is >not as useful to search through as having a specific patch tracker/database, >e.g. as found on SourceForge or Savannah projects. AFAIK the only gcc patch >tracker being used is not used on a mandatory basis. While I'm not suggesting that gcc use SF/Savannah, it seems odd that gcc has a bug database, but no patch tracking database.
