Publishing code reviews
aph at redhat.com
Fri Oct 19 03:19:07 PDT 2007
Mark Reinhold writes:
> > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:10:35 +0100
> > From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>
> > Here's a really simple suggestion: convert the diffs to "diff -u"
> > format and email them to a list. ...
> Your suggestions of sending diff -u output to mailing lists, for those
> who prefer that format, and of making sure that those lists are archived
> (in many places) are well taken.
> It seems that there's a hierarchy of code-review formats in which each
> format encompasses those below it. The lowest level is simple uniform
> diffs (diff -u), which are universal. Next come webrevs, which include
> uniform diffs, and then fancier, semi-automated systems such as the
> "robot" (which already generates webrevs) and Review Board (which could
> likely be hacked into doing so).
> As long as we build infrastructure that can support every layer of the
> hierarchy, everyone should be happy.
Yes, but be sure that reviewer comments are also mailed as a reply to
the diff -u output to the mailing lists.
Where are the reviewer comments for http://cr.opensolaris.org/~dp/i2o-del/ ?
I can't find them anywhere.
> > ...
> > Finally, a server that only keeps webrevs for a limited period of time
> > is a bad idea. We need to be able to find every version of every
> > patch that has ever been proposed.
> In most cases it should be possible to reconstruct a webrev from the
> corresponding diff in the e-mail archive.
Incidentally, the only place that "diff -u" really goes wrong is when
files are moved. We still don't have a nice way to publish such
changes on the gcc list, but then we very rarely move fies.
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
More information about the discuss