Josh Berkus wrote:
Is there a reason why the system needs to be primarily based on e-mail? I was thinking that the patch manager would be entirely a web tool, with people submitting and modifying a patch directly through a web interface. This would be lots easier to build than an e-mail based system, and also far more useful from a monitoring standpoint. I've worked with e-mail based systems like RT and OTRS, and frankly they're extremely high-maintenance and suffer a large amount of "lost" information.

The reason for basing the system on email is simply that it minimises the changes required in the community process. If it were entirely web based, we'd have to change the way we all work to discuss patches in a forum style, rather than a list style. I have a sneaking suspicion that at least one of our most valued contributors might object to that.

As long as the patch were initially submitted through the web interface so that it got assigned an ID, we could automatically track the initial, and followup threads on any of the lists as long as the ID is retained in the subject line.

We could also build a number of other things into the web tool, like a "You are submitting this patch under BSD" disclaimer and pointers to the Developer FAQ and other relevant documents.

Oh for sure. We could even do silly stuff like try to automatically determine if the patch is in diff -c format ;-)

Regards, Dave

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to