On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 15:56 -0600, Jose Lamego wrote: > > On 02/22/2017 02:55 PM, Michael Halstead wrote: > > I've seen several issues with hooks. I was working on them yesterday and > > will continue today. > > > > These are currently managed by hand but we are moving them into > > configuration management which should help keep them working consistently. > > Michael: one syntax error in patchwork code was pulled into production > yesterday. This is the cause for missing patches. The error is fixed in > the Yocto repo now, please perform a server code update ASAP. > > Martin: I will look at the UI issue you are describing and file a bug if > needed.
Would it perhaps make sense to reply to the original author with an email confirming that his patch is now in Patchwork? It should include a link to the patch series, too. This could have several advantages: * submitters not aware of Patchwork or whether their target currently uses it learn about it and then can follow the progress of their patch * everyone gets a confirmation that the submission made it through the various mail servers and Patchwork itself It still relies on the original submitter to watch out for breakages in the processes, but I guess that can't be avoided with an asynchronous, mail-based process. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel