On 7 June 2010 23:23, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> writes: > >> This makes sense. Thinking out loud myself, even for irregular >> contributors, the idea of a ping-man doesn't really sound right, it's a >> boring and error-prone task. Can anybody think of a way to automate the >> job? For patches corresponding to Bugzilla entries we already have, more >> or less, a complete procedure in place, I wonder if we could do >> something for the other contributions... > > I am 100% in favor of automating the job, but there is little point in > discussing how we can automate the job unless somebody is prepared to > volunteer to actually do the work. We do have a volunteer willing to > be a ping-man.
Perhaps NightStrike can fine-tune his approach. For example, only ping on behalf of people that are not regular GCC developers (I think it is pretty obvious after a while who those are). Still, a patch tracker that: * Allowed to submit patches via web and checked them for basic stuff (changelog, formatting, perhaps even building and testing) and automatically send them to gcc-patches for review with an appropriate subject line. * Tracked reviews in gcc-patches and updated the status in the tracker. * Tracked commits and updated the status accordingly. would be a superb contribution! Patchwork is the closest I have found: http://ozlabs.org/~jk/projects/patchwork/ but it lacks categories/components. Others listed in http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Patch_Tracking are either too complex or too simple. Cheers, Manuel.
