[Qemu-devel] Fwd: Proposal: Improving patch tracking and review using Rietveld

[Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>]

Forwarding this from the GCC mailing list.  Since patchwork isn't more 
than a mail archive the way it's implemented in QEMU, this may be a more 
interesting possibility.

Paolo

> At Google we use a code review tool which was open sourced a couple of
> years ago: Rietveld
> (http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/rietveld.html).
>
> The best way of thinking about it is "bugzilla for patches".  The
> system creates an entry for every patch submitted, provides a web tool
> for manipulating the patch (comments, different views of the diff,
> highlighting, etc) and it also has an email gateway.
>
> We have discussed patch tracking mechanisms in the past, and none so
> far has taken hold.  The reason why I like Rietveld is that it doesn't
> really matter whether we all switch to using it at once:
>
> 1- Rietveld always send the patch sent to it to gcc-patches@ (provided
> the submitter added gcc-patches to the CC list).
> 2- The whole trail of discussion on the patch also get sent to
> gcc-patches and everyone else is CC'd in it.
> 3- Reviewers do not need to use the web tool to reply to the patch.
> One can simply respond to the e-mail, and it will get added to the
> patch discussion trail.
>
> So, for people who do not want to use the tool, Rietveld will not get
> in the way.  They can simply respond to the patch as usual, and as
> long as they keep the rietveld email address in the CC list, the patch
> trail will be updated automatically.
>
> At Google we will start using Rietveld to send patches.  The only
> difference folks will notice is that Rietveld-generated email has some
> extra text.
>
> I have created a wiki page that explains the basics of using Rietveld
> (thanks Jeffrey for the instructions):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/rietveld
>
> Once again, I'd like to underscore the fact that if a patch submitter
> chooses to use Rietveld for tracking their patches, this should not
> affect in any way the traditional mail-based review.  All I ask is
> that reviewers maintain the CC and Subject line intact in order to not
> confuse the tool.
>
> Jeffrey, would you mind looking over the instructions I've written to
> make sure they're correct?
>
> Richard, this is the tool I mentioned in today's chat.
>
>
> Thanks.  Diego.