From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36673 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PiMhz-0000IE-Ki for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:56:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PiMha-0007BN-6l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:55:35 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:60289) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PiMha-0007BF-0o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:55:34 -0500 Received: by bwz16 with SMTP id 16so2178680bwz.4 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:55:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4D4124F2.7060407@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:55:30 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Fwd: Proposal: Improving patch tracking and review using Rietveld List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel 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.