On 02/20/2014 04:09 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> 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 [1] 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.

Majority of patches going to freeipa-devel are tied to some Trac ticket. These
are tracked and watched by the on_review flag and the new reviewer field. Those
that are not covered by any Trac ticket need to be tracked and cared of
manually by the submitter IMO.


Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to