Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: July 1999:
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] patches

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] patches

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rp@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Freeciv-Dev] patches
From: David Pfitzner <dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:38:18 +1000 (EST)

Reinier Post wrote:

> Freeciv needs better management of patch testing.  

I agree.

> Just a page on
> with a list of patches and fields like
>  date | author | based on version | comments by author | comments by testers
> and an e-mail address to send test reports to or just acknowledgements.

Well, personally I think the Bug Tracking System should be used 
for this.

It automatically gives date + author; text by the author should 
give version-based-on and author-comments; comments by testers can 
be either followups or notes in the bug system.  Plus you get to 
have folders to move patches between, such as:
  submitted, tested, deferred, rejected, applied, etc.

Probably the least ideal aspect is adding comments by testers,
since one needs to use email for followups, or have admin access 
to the bug system to add notes.  But I think its better than some 
manual system would be.  (And I would be happy for more poeple to 
have admin access to the bug system if they want to do this stuff.)

It mostly just requires people to submit patches (or eg URLs, for
large stuff) to the bug system by default instead of freeciv-dev.  
And I guess for us to publicise this as expected/required behaviour.

(For my part, I haven't really been doing this because mostly 
I've been intending to check-in my own patches within typically
a few days if no objections are raised.  But thats probably bad 
because if objections/comments _are_ made, then it would have 
been good for it to have been in the bug system from the start.
And for people to easily see pending patches.)

Of course it won't work if people have objections to this system.  
Are there objections?

Hmm, would it help (publicity-wise etc) if we had a _second_
Jitterbug instance, eg called the Freeciv Patch Tracking System,
with email submissions to <patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, a different
identifier then PR#, etc?  That would be easy to setup.  
The main disadvantge would be that we couldn't move messages 
between the two systems easily, but maybe thats not likely
to be wanted much anyway.

Also, how about if as an incentive I promise to give my first 
attention as maintainer to patches which are in the BTS? :->

(Just as a note, there are two patches currently in the 
patches-submitted folder in the BTS, both of which have 
followups suggesting improvements.)

-- David

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]