On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 15:59 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote: > On 02/20/2014 03:52 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 01:22:56PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote: > >> On 02/20/2014 01:14 PM, Martin Kosek wrote: > >>> We had a discussion with other developers how better track who is > >>> reviewing > >>> which patch. Recently, we introduced the Reviewed-By tag in a commit > >>> message, > >>> but that is a post-review tag which is not useful for someone who wants > >>> to know > >>> which patches are already reviewed and which are not reviewed. > >>> > >>> We were testing Patch Work  in last months to contain this > >>> information, but > >>> I personally think that it is suboptimal - it introduces 2 tracking tools > >>> that > >>> needs to be maintained (Trac and Patch Work) and the Patch Work still > >>> requires > >>> lot of manual actions when maintaining it's state. > >>> > >>> I think it would be better to hold this information rather in a single > >>> tracking > >>> tool - Trac. There are 2 options: > >>> > >>> 1) "Patch on review" flag, similar to "Patch posted for review" flag which > >>> would hold 1 bit information if the patch is just lying there or has > >>> somebody > >>> assigned. > >>> > >>> 2) "Reviewed by" text field which would hold a login of a person who is > >>> reviewing it. It would be filled either by a person starting the review > >>> or by a > >>> supervisor like me to forcefully assign a reviewer ;-) > >>> > >>> With that information in Trac, we could run using a single tracking tool > >>> for > >>> all patches that have a ticket (which is 95% of patches). It would be then > >>> fairly easy to see which patches are sent for review but are > >>> reviewer-less. > >>> > >>> It would also have a benefit for Petr's sendpatches.py script which could > >>> pull > >>> the reviewer from a ticket and one would not have to use the "-r" option > >>> to > >>> hard code a reviewer. > >>> > >>> Any objections to using "Reviewed by" field? > >> > >> +1, this is the only thing I used Patchwork for, and keeping > >> Patchwork up to date just for this took a lot of unnecessary > >> mindless clicking. > >> > >> Just a nitpick: name it "Patch Reviewer" > >> - there's more to a ticket than a patch > >> - the review is not done yet when the field is filled out > > > > The only use-case I use patchwork for right now is a 'dashboard' to see > > which patches need attention. If we could get this dashboard-like view > > from Trac with some custom query, then I'm fine with deprecating > > Patchwork. > > +1. I would like to add the reviewer to default report 3 + prepare a new view > "My Active Reviews by Milestone" to see the reviews which one should track. > > > > > However, one feature of patchwork was that each re-submission of a > > patch triggered a new thread so as a reviewer you could easily see there > > is a new instance of the patch that you need to look at. I suspect Trac > > wouldn't give us anything like that? > > When I get a review, I like to get the response to inbox - then I always know. > When replies are only being sent to the list, we would have to use the > advanced > Trac workflow and cautiously change states between accepted - submitted - > onreview.
I think this means we'll be back to have to carefully track the mailing list because stuff will be missed. This is something patchwork "fixed". I wonder if we can build some automatism to not loose the good things here. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipaemail@example.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel