At Google we use a code review tool which was open sourced a couple of years ago: Rietveld (http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/rietveld.html).
The best way of thinking about it is "bugzilla for patches". The system creates an entry for every patch submitted, provides a web tool for manipulating the patch (comments, different views of the diff, highlighting, etc) and it also has an email gateway. We have discussed patch tracking mechanisms in the past, and none so far has taken hold. The reason why I like Rietveld is that it doesn't really matter whether we all switch to using it at once: 1- Rietveld always send the patch sent to it to gcc-patches@ (provided the submitter added gcc-patches to the CC list). 2- The whole trail of discussion on the patch also get sent to gcc-patches and everyone else is CC'd in it. 3- Reviewers do not need to use the web tool to reply to the patch. One can simply respond to the e-mail, and it will get added to the patch discussion trail. So, for people who do not want to use the tool, Rietveld will not get in the way. They can simply respond to the patch as usual, and as long as they keep the rietveld email address in the CC list, the patch trail will be updated automatically. At Google we will start using Rietveld to send patches. The only difference folks will notice is that Rietveld-generated email has some extra text. I have created a wiki page that explains the basics of using Rietveld (thanks Jeffrey for the instructions): http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/rietveld Once again, I'd like to underscore the fact that if a patch submitter chooses to use Rietveld for tracking their patches, this should not affect in any way the traditional mail-based review. All I ask is that reviewers maintain the CC and Subject line intact in order to not confuse the tool. Jeffrey, would you mind looking over the instructions I've written to make sure they're correct? Richard, this is the tool I mentioned in today's chat. Thanks. Diego.
