Re: Patch formalization

Stipe Tolj schrieb:
> 
> Main policy items, IMO:
> 
> 1. where to submit: devel@ list.
> 2. subject prefixing: [PATCH] my foobar patch that does
> 3. form of the patch: diff -u against CVS HEAD at 'gateway' root
> 4. form of source code: gateway/doc/CodingStyle should be obeyed
> 5. explanation of the patch: the more the reviewers "understand" the easier to
> review, and then vote. This enhances the patch post to commit cycle
> 6. all 'open' patches should be maintained in mantis (bug tracking system) too,
> at least as reference (i.e. via the mailing list Msg-Id) and the patch itself
> attachment. This helps us to maintain a single point of view to see what pathces
> are still pending.
> 7. any patch that introduces a behavior change needs votes, hence consensus of
> the group.
> 8. obvious bug fixes can be committed directly, but should be noticeable to the
> devel@ list with the same subject prefixing.

3.1: patch is supplied as mail attachment, not inlined, for the sake of line
wrapping horrors ;)

Stipe

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany

tolj.org system architecture      Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/              http://www.kannel.org/

mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org           mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------