merge/review process

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 14:45 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On  9 Dec 2005, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 12:56 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > > On  9 Dec 2005, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 07:39 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> > > > > Martin Pool wrote:
> > > > > > I'd like to suggest a system for reviewing code for integration.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you'd like to propose a change, please post a patch, bzr changeset,
> > > > > > or link to a branch.  Please put either '[patch]' or '[merge]' in the
> > > > > > subject so we can pick them out, and include some text explaining the
> > > > > > change.  Remember to put an update to the NEWS file in your diff, if it makes
> > > > > > any changes visible to users or plugin developers.
> > > > 
> > > > Lets reserve [merge] to mean 'please merge this.' And [patch] to mean
> > > > 'there is code in this email' -> not 'please merge this code'. 
> > > 
> > > OK, sounds good.  So anything that wants to be reviewed for merge should
> > > say [patch] - and preferably contain a diff even if you want me/us to
> > > merge from a branch.
> > 
> > I meant other way around ;)
> > 
> > [merge] = 'please review this for merge'
> > [patch] = 'there is code in here, draft or whatever, but not ready for
> > merge review'
> 
> To avoid confusion, perhaps we should just say '[patch]' for any
> submission of code, whatever the form?

Yup. The [RFC] and [PATCH] markers work for me.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051215/3ac89048/attachment.pgp