mq usage

[Benoit Boissinot]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 01:16:50PM +0200, Mathieu Lacage wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 13:09 +0200, Peer Sommerlund wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 2009/4/20 Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage at sophia.inria.fr>
> >         
> >         On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 13:51 +0200, Mathieu Lacage wrote:
> >         >
> >         > What I am really looking at now, is a new workflow to try to
> >         make the
> >         > review process less painful for everyone involved, hence, my
> >         interest in
> >         > mq. I spent a good while reading the extensive material
> >         available in the
> >         > hg book and the hg wiki: both of these explain fairly
> >         clearly what can
> >         > be done with the tool, and how useful it could be.
> > 
> > 
> > Could you explain which parts of the process is painful?
> 
> 1) low-quality patches (whitespace, too-big or too-small granularity,
> etc.) are hard to review
> 
> 2) reviewing more than once a single large patch is extremely un-fun,
> especially when each review is weeks apart (reviewer losing context from
> previous review)
> 
> Most of these issues are related to the low quality of patches produced
> by reviewees so, I am looking for a way to make it easier for them to
> produce good patches, respin them quickly whenever needed, etc.

Did you have a look at rietveld or reviewboard ? It offers patch
comment, diff from patches, etc.

regards,

Benoit

-- 
:wq