[CT-NG] Patch approval process

["Yann E. MORIN" <yann dot morin dot 1998 at anciens dot enib dot fr>]

Hello all!

As it turns out, reviewing submissions incurs quite some burden onto me,
and takes quite a good amount of the time I could otherwise dedicate to
enhancing crosstool-NG.

A while back, I've suggested a patch submission and approval process [1]
and I would like your feedback on this plan.

Let me summarise it again below:

- patches shall be posted here (crossgcc ML), and CCed to me
  - patch submission is explained in the documentation, section
    CONTRIBUTING, in the file docs/overview.txt
  - the README points to this file
  - the homepage will be updated to match

- people have a few days to comment and rate the patch, on the list:
  - reply, and quote the entire patch:
    - CC OP (might not be subscribed)
  - inspect the patch from both POV:
    - feature-wise: is it a good feature _for_crosstool-NG_ ?
    - code-wise: is the patch clean, does it fit well in crosstool-NG?
  - as first line _after_ the quoted patch, either rate with '+1'
    (for approval), or '-1' (for disapproval)
  - if you disaprove the patch, add explanations interpersed in the
    corresponding part of the patch

- at the end of the voting period, inspects results:
  - if ( total_ratings < minimum_ratings)
    - drop the patch
  - if strong concerns have been raised about the patch,
    - drop the patch, and ask for fixes. or explain why it is refused
  - if ( ( positive_ratings / total_ratings ) >= 2/3 ),
    - apply the patch
  - else,
    - drop the patch

minimum_ratings:
  the minimum number of ratings required to inspect the results. Too low,
  it is meaningless; too high, there will not be enough people on this
  list. 5 ratings seem like to be a good choice.

voting period:
  the number of day people have to post patch reviews. Too short, people
  won't have time to perform a correct review; too long, we'd forget about
  the patch and/or it will bit-ot on the list. 3 days seem appropriate.

2/3rd majority:
  required majority before a patch is applied, unless strong and valid
  objections have been raised.

All-mighty Maintainer:
  Aha! I reserve the right to referee in case of dispute! :-]

I also receive patches directly, and for those patch I'd answer with
something along the lines of:
  Please resend to crossgcc@... and cc: me, or
  your patch will be dropped without furher notice.


What do you people think about this plan?

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

1. http://sourceware.org/ml/crossgcc/2009-09/msg00065.html

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
`------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'



--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq