Publishing code reviews

[Andrew Haley]

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.

Right.  

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.

Andrew.

-- 
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903