On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 01:27:41PM -0700, SL Baur wrote: We don't usually have big patches that go around, are tested and tweaked by some people, then eventually are rejected or included. That's why I think this system wouldn't fit. Also, you seem to trust the reviewers more than Linus trusts Alan Cox, David S. Miller and others. The xemacs-patches/xemacs-review system isn't bad, actually. The only difficult point is when to jump a thread out of the review list to the beta one in case of fundamentals discussions. Also keeping track of what has been reviewed and what hasn't sometimes is a problem. A system that may be very interesting given our organization is Jitterbug <URL:http://samba.anu.edu.au/cgi-bin/jitterbug>. You send in patches by mail, they jump into the "pending" queue, then people can test them and trusted ones can annotate them and move them to some "reviewed", "rejected", "urgent", ... queue. Steve can additionnaly take them, apply them and move them to "applied". Additionnal benefits would be that you can't lose a patch. Drawback: it is web-based. I have no system I could put the system on for xemacs use, but I can go and take the time to install and nurse it somewhere if it can help (and I'm told which somewhere ;-). I've never installed it though, so anyone else would be as good as me there :-) OG.