{i} This page does not meet our wiki style guidelines. Please help improve this page by cleaning up its formatting.


This page is primarily intended for developers of Mercurial.

Patch Review Process

This page explains the Mercurial patch review process and how (anyone) can help.

1. Generic Fact

2. Simple Review Checklist

2.1. For email patches

If any concerns raised, reply to the email asking questions.

If everything sounds good, reply to the email too. Just state it looks good to you in your reply. To make your pre-review even more useful, don't forget to go to Patchwork and mark the patches as "Pre-Reviewed".

2.2. For Phabricator patches

Comment on the web page. Feel free to use "Accept Revision" action even if you're not a core reviewer. If you want to comment without using a browser, follow steps on Phabricator and use "hg phabupdate".

3. Things we commonly miss

(we should probably move these recommendation in other page and just link to them)

4. Accepters Review Checklist

Some people are blessed to accept patches and push them to a repo where Matt Mackall ultimately pulls from.

Here is another check list for them

5. Patchwork States


Nobody looked at this patch yet


non-committer have "lgtm", but still needs someone to look at it

Under Review

A committer is discussing the patch with the author

2nd Review Requested

committer looked at it and think it should be accepted, but second pair of eyes requested


Patch is pushed to hg-committed

Changes Requested

changes requested by committer, needs new version



an RFC patch, significant behavior change or code architecture choice is proposed, requires as wide as possible opinions


new version available

Not Applicable

not a patch


Idea or patch is not terrible per se, but we'll take care of it later (resubmit when appropriate)

6. Review Tooling

7. The Committers Group

Current list with push access to the hg-committed repository


ReviewProcess (last edited 2019-09-10 08:08:14 by RyanMcElroy)