> -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:52 AM > To: Weddington, Eric > Cc: Ian Lance Taylor; Basile STARYNKEVITCH; GCC Mailing List > Subject: RE: increasing the number of GCC reviewers > > > While I'm not suggesting that gcc use SF/Savannah, it seems > odd that gcc > > has a bug database, but no patch tracking database. > > Sure, a database is useful; I identified Bugzilla as a model that has > worked well.
I would think that setting up a bugzilla database for patches would might allow some clarification of the approval process. Fields could be set up to categorize the patch into one or more approval areas (e.g. patch needs approval from target maintainer and middle-end maintainer), and ways to mark the patch with what is needed (e.g., needs ChangeLog, GNU coding standards, fix in specified area (w/ reference to comment), etc.), general status of patch (e.g. NEW, WAITING FOR CHANGE, APPROVED, REJECTED, whatever), priority and target milestone. Perhaps with having a database of patches, reviewers could search for "open patches" and pick and choose a patch to review as they like and time permitting, much like it's done with the bug database today. If people do not want to be promoted to reviewers today because of the fear that they cannot keep up with gcc-patches (that somehow they have to keep track of every single patch coming in), then maybe a patch database is way to allow them to ease into participating in the review process and to do the partial reviews that would still help move things along.
