Attila Lendvai <att...@lendvai.name> writes: > do you think there's a substantial number of reviews done by people > who don't have the commit bit? and that their review is a substantial > help for the patch throughput?
My point is precisely that I do not know definitively what is the case. And as such, it needs _some_ consideration in the proposal. > i don't really have data on this, but my (moderately informed) > impression is that it's not really a relevant amount. Perhaps so. I don't have an informed view, merely an anecdotal one. I.e., I simply know that it's a possibility (given that I have done some non-trivial, and I hope helpful, reviews without commit access, and a thing that facilitated that was the ease of responding to patch emails). Evidence and reasoning considering this factor, or explaining why this factor is a non-issue would be a valuable addition to the proposal. > and as for the efficiency of the new workflow: i think it strictly depends on > how easy it is to script the new infrastructure. and if the new infra has more > structured/formal ways to store/access the data than debbugs and mailing > lists, > then i'm pretty sure it can only make scripting easier. then scripts and emacs > based tools could serve the power users, while the web UI could serve the > occasional contributors. Could you share some examples of the types of "scripting" you mean above? Specifically, if there are examples of scripting that you believe would allow for an Emacs-based review workflow, please share. -- Suhail
