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
