Am Freitag, den 13.08.2010, 23:01 +0200 schrieb Vitus Jensen: > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Vitus Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:
[…]
> >> They did. But after you posted you ACKs I changed their state to
> >> "Accepted"
> >> and then they are usually filtered by "Action Required". I'm not really
> >> sure I did the right thing but I don't believe they shouldn't remain in
> >> "New".
> >
> > If they got applied change the state to 'applied'
>
> Sure, already did! Do I set the 'archive' bit, too?
I think so. Yes.
> Frans got hit by the fact, that 'accepted' patches don't show up in the
> list by default.
>
> Vitus posts patches
> Frans acks patches
> Vitus changes state to 'accepted'
> Vitus asks Frans to apply
> Frans: where are those patches in patchwork???
> Frans forces his googlemail to produce usable mail and applies
> Vitus changes state to 'applied'
I would also advise to set the commit ID when setting the state to
applied. Actually this can be done automatically [2], but the
administrators have not yet had time to address this.
We have the following 11 states.
$ pwclient state
ID Name
-- ----
1 New
2 Under Review
3 Accepted
4 Rejected
5 RFC
6 Not Applicable
7 Changes Requested
8 Awaiting Upstream
9 Superseded
10 Deferred
11 Applied
What is the difference between 3 (Accepted) and 8 (Awaiting Upstream)?
> Probably I should update the wiki [1] to document the above procedure, right?
That would be great. But before there should be reached a little
consensus to save you some unnecessary work.
I guess the accepted state is too much work and could be skipped?
+ Normally people reviewing and acknowledging patches have commit access
and will do this shortly afterward.
- People with commit access not searching the list and just looking at
the patch queue would see that those patches have been reviewed and
acknowledged and could commit these patches.
I do not know if we already have some people taking care of the patch
queue. If there are such folks, they should voice their opinion what
they prefer.
Thanks,
Paul
[1] http://wiki.openembedded.net/index.php/Patchwork
[2]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2010-August/022588.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
