This is the mail archive of the archer@sourceware.org mailing list for the Archer project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
* Mandatory patch review: any patch must be reviewed by at least one person other than the author. Anybody "in the project" can review ("+1") a patch (and for Red Hat folks -- everybody has to do their share).
I think a single +1 should be enough for the time being. But, I
don't feel strongly about this -- any preferences?
* A strong objection (aka "-1") should stall a patch until a rough consensus is reached. FWIW the "rough" is meant to imply a requirement of reasonableness on both sides of a disagreement.
* Some proposed baselines for patch review:
- Does it have internal documentation (comments)?
- Does it follow upstream coding style?
- Does it have external documentation, if needed?
- Does it have a test case, if needed?
- Is it clear and complete?
- A GCC-like rule: a submitter should say how the patch was
tested; reviewers can assume that there were no regressions.
* Upstream rule: I think we should require FSF assignment paperwork,
so that we can push changes upstream. I don't think this will be a
major imposition.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |