From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CFD67EC6E for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:49:22 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of francois.bobot@cea.fr) identity=pra; client-ip=132.168.224.8; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="francois.bobot@cea.fr"; x-sender="francois.bobot@cea.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of francois.bobot@cea.fr designates 132.168.224.8 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=132.168.224.8; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="francois.bobot@cea.fr"; x-sender="francois.bobot@cea.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr) identity=helo; client-ip=132.168.224.8; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="francois.bobot@cea.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4CAG+101KEqOAInGdsb2JhbABahxezY4MIgQ4WDgEBAQEBCAsJCRQogiUBAQEEIw8BBTYbCxgCAgUhAgIPAkYTCAKIAKlwmmkXgSmMfAoGAgFWFoJZgUgEnlyOfoFn X-IPAS-Result: Ag4CAG+101KEqOAInGdsb2JhbABahxezY4MIgQ4WDgEBAQEBCAsJCRQogiUBAQEEIw8BBTYbCxgCAgUhAgIPAkYTCAKIAKlwmmkXgSmMfAoGAgFWFoJZgUgEnlyOfoFn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,651,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="52957564" Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr ([132.168.224.8]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Jan 2014 10:49:18 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s0D9nHOQ029358 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:49:17 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 81CAA203A40 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:50:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BEB2039D0 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:50:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.8.32.80] (is222783.intra.cea.fr [10.8.32.80]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s0D9nHgR003563 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:49:17 +0100 Message-ID: <52D3B71B.40802@cea.fr> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:51:23 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?RnJhbsOnb2lzIEJvYm90?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <20140111152357.GB28133@notk.org> <20140111154146.GA976@lenat> <20140113090444.GA8904@notk.org> In-Reply-To: <20140113090444.GA8904@notk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Doing compiler patch review with a dedicated mailing-list On 13/01/2014 10:04, Adrien Nader wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014, Simon Cruanes wrote: >> Le Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Adrien Nader a écrit : >>> Hi, >>> >>> (and sorry for the mail sent a few minutes ago :) ) >>> >>> I'd like to know what people think about having a mailing-list for >>> reviews and tests of patches to the compiler and tools around it. >>> >>> The idea is to do something similar to the kernel mailing-list. I mostly >>> like mantis and it is possible to attach files but it becomes fairly >>> unreadable after a while. The audience is also mostly limited to people >>> who are subscribed to the bug report. I hope this reduces the work and >>> burden of reviewers and especially commiters. >>> >>> The goal is not to replace patches on mantis and you shouldn't believe >>> this has been blessed by the core development team (nor mentionned to >>> them actually). Instead, I hope this helps do quicker (and smaller?) >>> iteration of patches. >>> I don't know how you generate and _manage_ patches with svn. Indeed the linux kernel developers never used svn with their mailing-list review workflow and developed git for simplifying this workflow. It seems counterproductive to have more than one place for discussing one thing so I think the developers must make a choice: - keeping patch review in mantis - going to a mailing-list review workflow and moving from svn - going to a merge-request workflow on github, specific gitlab instance, bitbuckets, ... The last two points have the benefit to allow to easily comment inside the patches. The third point (at least on github) subsume the second point since you can answer to github issues or merge-requests by email. You can also ask to be notified for every issues or merge-requests of a project. Best, -- François