Hi, On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 at 12:14, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let's avoid manual gardening as much as possible! :-) > > I like the idea! I think that automatizing is not trivial. Sadly. There are many corner cases: 1. series as attachement 2. not all the series is applied 3. commit message had been tweaked 4. etc. The potential issue is the number of false-positive; closing and the submission is not applied. Maybe patchwork already running (I think) could help, trying to regularly rebase the branch dedicated to the submission on the top of master, then if all is fine, somehow the two heads from the master branch and the dedicated branch should match, and it would indicate the patches are included and it is safe to close. More or less. :-) That’s said, I always find annoying to loose the track between the Git history and the discussion that happened in the tracker. Sometimes, rational of some details of the implementation had been discussed in the tracker and it is impossible to find then back. Therefore, I would be in favor to add ’Close #1234’ in the commit message, say the first one from the series tracked by #1234. Doing so, it would ease automatic management of guix-patches. However, it would add again some burden on committer shoulder. Similarly, we are already adding in the commit message something like ’Fixes <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/1234>’. And that could be used for closing. Again, the concern is about false-positive; closing when it should not be. Well, I think that automatizing is not trivial. :-) Cheers, simon