On 12 November 2014 06:04, Taras Kondratiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/11/2014 08:14 PM, Mike Holmes wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11 November 2014 11:33, Taras Kondratiuk <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 11/11/2014 06:22 PM, Anders Roxell wrote: >> >> On 11 November 2014 17:12, Taras Kondratiuk >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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. > > > Review in ML works nice if everybody follows a set of simple rules: > - Use proper mail client which use '>' for quoting and doesn't corrupt > patches in replied email.
With gmail you need to go to the bottom right corner of the reply and click "plain text mode" > - Plain text only. Maybe it worth to force ML to drop HTML emails > completely. I will look at mailman config but we will need a quick poll on that before changing, but I like the idea I think. Anyone disagree before we even start ? > - Bottom posting. > - Leave only necessary context in a reply instead of resending a whole > patch again. > - Proper subject prefix. > - Resend a new version of a whole series even if one patch was modified. > Resending only separate patches makes it next to impossible for > reviewers to reconstruct the latest series. > - Do not resend big series too often, because it clutters ML and > fragments review comments. People will often miss a new series and > review an old version of it. > > Currently nobody follows these rules and review of big series becomes a > nightmare. Unless everybody start to follow them I'd prefer to use > Gerrit. Agree, we need to be like Kim was and nudge people in the right direction so that it makes everyone's lives easier. -- Mike Holmes Linaro Sr Technical Manager LNG - ODP _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
