Hi Mauro,
> However, assuming we could identify a patch series, wouldn't it make
> sense to automatically create a bundle?
I'd prefer to have the 'relations' different from bundles. The way I see
this implemented:
* Add a table of (from_patch_id, to_patch_id, relation_type)
* relation types would be something like:
* "same-series" (identified by the x/n text)
* "update" (either by looking at the patch 'proximity' or a v2 in
the subject)
* "addition" (not entirely sure how to detect this, maybe if the
others don't match?)
* Add to the patch parser code to add suitable relations when possible
* Allow these relations to be (somehow) exposed in the patch list and/or
patch page.
The last point is the hard bit, so I'd like any ideas you have on
exposing these relations. I was thinking of adding a "related patches"
list to the patch page (or a link to the set of related patches on a
separate page), grouped by relation type. This will let the maintainer
quickly grab all patches in one series (without needing to create a
bundle), or see that a patch has an update.
Cheers,
Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Patchwork mailing list
Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
