Blake Ross wrote:
> If people have a patch they want reviewed, it's
> not much trouble to fire off a quick e-mail to the person they want to have
> review it.
>
> New contributors who are submitting patches should have read
> http://mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html, which clearly outlines this
> procss, anyways, so that isn't really an argument.
If new contributors (as opposed to the bug owner) really have to actively drive
the review process, then the "review" keyword does more harm than good, and its
existence should come to an end.
It was my understanding that once a bug has the patch & review keywords, it's
the bug owner's task to take some action, e.g.
- reassign the bug to a more appropriate person (e.g. module owner)
- review the patch, and drive the super-review & checkin process if the patch
is fine
- ask the patch author to get reviews from someone else
- leave a comment and remove the patch/review keywords if the approach is bad
http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/ asks contributors to attach patches to the bug
and then discuss them on the newsgroup. The newsgroup discussions don't seem to
happen in all cases, but if this is really the reason for bitrotting patches,
the bug owner should make sure contributors are aware.
If adding the "review" keyword is not meant to trigger some action from someone
else, this keyword should be destroyed. BTW, can someone give an example when
to use "patch" without "review" (currently 131 bugs), or "review" without
"patch" (currently 21 bugs)?
Andreas
