On 9 August 2017 at 12:51, Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Darrell Ball <db...@vmware.com> writes:
>> Thanks Joe
>> I forgot to add your Tested-by to V5; I have been testing this myself;
>> but let me know if you would like it added – I can send a V6.
> It will automatically be added by patchwork. It is sufficient to
> download (ex: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/799499/mbox)
> I usually use patchwork when working on a series - if I download it from
> patchwork, I can be confident that all the tags are applied properly, so
> I won't forget. Plus, all the discussion happens there, so I can
> quickly browse it.
Indeed. Personally I tend to use 'pwclient' for this, although
occasionally pwclient gets a little confused by some patches. Using
the links like you have provided above is always reliable.
download of .pwclientrc)
> The full list is available at:
> It would actually be cool to have a few more admins to troll patchwork
> and do things like ping for status (ex:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/719492/ is this still needed? it
> does seem to mostly apply). Then we could make sure we don't miss
I know that there are a few of us who already do this, perhaps for
some of these months-old patches we should just respond on the list
thread to ask if the submitter is still looking for review and try to
link them up with a reviewer. In the particular linked case, typically
when the submitter is a maintainer and their patch is acked, the
submitter/maintainer would apply it. It looks like it fell through
Daniele's radar though.
dev mailing list