Re: Next steps from GTI TAC meeting on 2023-03-08 - Evaluate cost of glibc migration.

On 2023-05-24 10:12, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Is 100% coverage an achievable and timely goal? :-)

It's an achievable, timely *and* trivial goal if we post missing commits 
(i.e. commits in git without a matching patch on libc-alpha) to 
libc-alpha as [pushed].

> I think that Patchwork *could* meet this need but isn't quite there yet.
> 
>> If noting where you stopped/started is cumbersome then you could add
>> another Audited terminal state in patchwork to track that.
> 
> That would need to be a per-reviewer state that doesn't exist today in patchwork.
> 
> The Audited terminal state would be global, and Joseph and I notice different things
> in our reviews and apply different criteria for calling out a patch that needs follow
> up work or review.
> 
> In summary:
> 
> - Post-commit review facilitation for projects continues to be a value-add step
>    in the maintainer process and is currently mbox-based.
> 
> - The bar for post-commit review today is an mbox review-style process and a
>    replacement needs to handle multiple reviewers walking the queue at different
>    rates and applying different criteria to review (tag-based scheme?)

Wouldn't a [pushed] email to libc-alpha provide more visibility then, 
given that multiple people (I do too, albeit infrequently) tend to 
review these commits?  It shouldn't need a separate mailing list, given 
our email traffic volume.  Basically:

- Commits to the main branch go to libc-alpha
- Commits to release/* branches go to libc-stable
- All other commits (i.e. to private branches) get ignored.

Thanks,
Sid