On 1 July 2011 18:38, Glyph Lefkowitz firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
As Itamar has already suggested, I think that this is a solution in search of a problem. Aside from occasionally saving a contributor the trouble of typing 'review' in the keywords field every so often, what is this actually going to accomplish? We have too many pending patches already, with not enough sustained interest to either review them or fix them; what we need are more sustained contributors, more reviewers. Is this going to help us sustain interest?
I agree that there is a problem getting patches reviewed, I think git provides a much better tool to reduce the effort and pain for a reviewer in applying patches, and updating branches to HEAD. Github's patch review tool, and the ability to get a diff to a patch reviewed are big wins in my opinion.
I think github means less effort for the reviewer because they can review commits, rather than a large diff. They can review changes following a review. They can have a tool to make comments next to the code and it is less effort to apply patches and update branches to HEAD.
Small, documentation diffs, for instance can be reduced to a single click for a core developer to merge the change to trunk.