Volker Hilsheimer (23 January 2024 10:00) wrote: > I also like the general idea of supporting the header review process > with more information, such as links to the relevant documentation, or > even a documentation diff, or even change on gerrit that introduced > the change; but that’s probably orders of magnitude harder and complex > to implement, so let’s not wait for that.
Doing this as part of the api-review-gen process would complicate an already brittle process, but it might be possible to write a gerrit script that would, in similar manner to the inanity 'bot, scan these reviews and post links to docs.qt.io for the new API or, perhaps more valuably, determine whether there *are* docs there and post comments on the review if not. That would decouple the doc-posting from the scripts that generate the reviews. We should also consider coaxing the inanity 'bot and API-change 'bot into recognising the API change reviews (they have a recognisable first line of commit message pattern) and not spamming them with irrelevancies. Eddy. -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development