[CT-NG] Patch approval process
Yann E. MORIN
yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr
Mon Oct 12 18:27:00 GMT 2009
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
More information about the crossgcc
mailing list