[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Patch queue management systems

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: Patch queue management systems
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 19:17:26 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0

On 12/09/2014 07:09 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

Magit is not part of Emacs.  I think we would like this to be
integrated into VC.

Right. I meant reimplementing magit-gerrit won't take too much work.

Right, but that's only if/when we decide to push all contributions
though this system. We could start light, and continue allowing
committing directly to the repository, but move the
patches-to-be-discussed (which will take up reviewers' time anyway) to
the new system.

I'm not sure such a split process makes sense.  It will complicate
procedures and most probably cause some patches fall through the

Why? It's not much different from what happens now.

Consider this: if a patch is posted to the bug tracker or emacs-devel now, it would go though the new system when it's set up.

Patches that are written by users with commit access and installed directly will continue to proceed this way.

I think comments about the form are usually the easiest part of the
review, and some of that can be automated.  Also, some form-related
issues are actually derived from familiarity with Emacs design and
implementation.  So yes, we could have "junior reviewers" who'd only
deal with form issues, but that would off-load only a minor portion of
the work required to do this.

I don't know about that. If the code is written by a senior developer in the area where they're competent, most of the time only superficial review is required (unless the author explicitly indicates otherwise). Then a junior could be enough, too.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]