Re: Patch queue management systems

[Dmitry Gutov]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:

> I like debbugs better than any other bug tracking system I've used.
> Because it's in Emacs.  :-)  `/ tls' and there all the TLS-related bugs
> are.

A lot of people dislike it, myself included. There was a yet-another
thread about a replacement recently, but apparently it fizzled out. Too
bad.

> But it does need more features to make it possible to type less when
> applying patches.  A one-keystroke command to apply the patch, put the
> bug number into the ChangeLog, and do a "make" in a buffer to see
> whether any compilation warnings are generated, as well as a one-touch
> "make the commit message and check this stuff in" command.

This still won't compare with a decent code review system:

- Externally visible queue of contributions, so that people from outside
  can get a better look at Emacs development, and maybe learn something.
  And speaking of debbugs, I can even get a list of "all bugs with
  patches" from inside of Emacs.

- A working integration server that gives an overview of whether each
  patch (or better: Git branch) compiles, passes tests, etc, which will
  be a good reminder for a contributor if they broke something, even
  before a reviewer is involved.

- Inline comments: hide the old ones as the discussion progresses, only
  show the ones still pertinent to the current changeset (though this
  part may be hard to integrate into Emacs either way). I was kinda
  hoping it might would serve as an alternative for debbugs comments.

- If Git branches are involved, and ChangeLogs are phased out, an
  automatic "merge this branch" action would be natural to use, instead
  of doing the things you've enumerated above. If course, that's two
  whole ifs.