On 11 November 2014 13:32, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would be happy with a git interface to patches.linaro.org > patches is just - http://jk.ozlabs.org/projects/patchwork/ and is not intened to replace a mailing list unfortuantly, take a peek at their faq. An additional problem is the Linaro have modified our instance of patchwork to track only contributions from linaro email addresses, to date I have not got traction on getting a clean instance installed for ODP, but the value from it appeared to be slight so I have not pursued it very vigorously. so that patches can be pulled directly from an official repository of > pending patches. I don't like the fact that every list subscriber is on > their own to as far as responsibility for keeping track of e-mails. That > seems very error-prone. > > Actually, pending patches SHOULD be maintained as part of the repository > itself. That's what the origin is for, no? When I do a git clone I point > to the authoritative base for the project. That's where patches intended > for merge should also reside so there's no question as to what they are, > how they relate, or what their status is. Reviewed-by, Tested-by, etc. > should also be just git commands against those pending patches. Gerrit, > et. al. would then just be providing a GUI front end for ease of use. > > Anyone cloning the repository or doing an update from it would also > automatically cache the patches that are pending against it for easy local > review/applying/testing, etc. Deprecated/obsoleted patches could also > easily be noted by the maintainer so that we don't have people wasting time > on patches that have been withdrawn or superseded. > > But then again this is a digression from using the tool we have at hand. > > Bill > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 11 November 2014 11:33, Taras Kondratiuk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 11/11/2014 06:22 PM, Anders Roxell wrote: >>> >>>> On 11 November 2014 17:12, Taras Kondratiuk < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/11/2014 04:50 PM, Anders Roxell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2014-11-11 08:24, Bill Fischofer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what you're saying is that patches aren't always the practical >>>>>>> solution? >>>>>>> :) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I like patches better... however, different taste =) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I spoke with Anders earlier and will get setup on people.linaro.org >>>>>>> today. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> get a setup on git.linaro.org/people/<username>/... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can we try as an experiment reviewing this series in Gerrit? >>>>> >>>> >>>> and again, gerrit isn't good for discussions in patches =( >>>> >>>> >>> Why not? It has its pros and cons if compared to ML review. >> >> >> I also wanted gerrit when B&B in Linaro switched to it, here is what more >> experience gerit users told me were the flaws. >> >> 1. you may need a linaro account to send patches to ODP, I assume >> this is true if we re use Linaro gerrit infrastructure >> 2. The major concern was that apparently it is hard to have >> discussions via gerrit, I have never tried beyond using it for the q/a >> Testing repo in Linaro which are small straightforward patches. >> >> I like gerrit because >> >> - current state of all patches is extremely clear - no grepping your >> mail >> - mandatory reviewers can be specified - you know who to target to >> get signoffs, on the other side you know you are expected to review >> something (maintainers, area experts get put on this list) >> - Objections to patches are clearly documented and not lost down a >> mail thread - no recycling issues >> >> I personally believe that the discussion issue no.2 is resolved by the >> patch submitter taking the initiative and calling, hangout, mailing the >> folks with comments and then recording the result in gerrit rather than >> bogging the list with the minutia - we could do that now too :) >> >> Item one can be fixed no doubt, but for item two I am not sure it fixes >> our fundamental problem, we need tight communication between submitters any >> key reviewers before a patch even hits the list. >> >> For 1.0 we should stick with what we have, we cannot afford a round of >> assigning gerrit permissions to people and learning the too etcl right now. >> >> Mike >> >> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lng-odp mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Mike Holmes* >> Linaro Sr Technical Manager >> LNG - ODP >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lng-odp mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> >> > -- *Mike Holmes* Linaro Sr Technical Manager LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
