Patch Review Process

This page explains the Mercurial patch review process and how (anyone) can help.

1. Generic Fact

• All reviews happen on MailingLists#The_Mercurial-Devel_list

• Contributors follow the ContributingChanges and send their patch(es) to the list (hopefully using the PatchbombExtension)

• Reviews are just email replies to the emailed patch

• Everyone is welcome to do review.

2. Simple Review Checklist

• The patch should conform to the ContributingChanges bullet list.

  • Quick reminder of important things:
  • commit message format,
  • Patch does one and only one thing,
  • Change is tested
  • Documentation augmented an updated
  • (all the other things in the list)
• You understand the change
• The change seems correct
• The change seems efficient

If any concerns raised, reply to the email asking questions.

If everything sounds good, reply to the email too. Just state it looks good to you.

3. Accepters Review Checklist

Some people are blessed to accept patches and push them to a repo where Matt Mackall ultimatly pull from.

Here is another check list for them

• Run check code on all patches
• Run the whole test suites
• Reply to the list saying that you took care of the patch
• Make sure you created obsolescence marker between the node in the patch and the one you created, e.g.

  • hg import --partial --obsolete <patches>:

• use the drophack extension if you need to drop a changeset you queued

• Rebase your queue on top of main's @

• Move @ with the changeset you pushed.

• Update Patchwork once you have pushed

4. Review Tooling

• Patchwork (backlog plot)

• The Patches Bot (sources)

• Collection of script

• Matt Mackall Inbox Metrix (nb email, nb patches, oldest email (in day))