> > >> Upstream should do what's best for upstream, not for Intel's "unique"
> > >> management.
> > >>
> > >>Not sure how from Emma explaining how Rb tags were used by Intel
> > >>management it came the conclusion that it were used in that way only
> > >> by
> > >>Intel management.
Daniel Stone writes:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:13, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> Alyssa Rosenzweig writes:
>> >
>> > Sorry, I'll make that point more emphatic.
>> >
>> > Upstream must do what's best for upstream without zero regard for the
>> > whims of management. Doubly so for bad management.
>>
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:13, Jordan Justen wrote:
> Alyssa Rosenzweig writes:
> >> Upstream should do what's best for upstream, not for Intel's "unique"
> >> management.
> >>
> >>Not sure how from Emma explaining how Rb tags were used by Intel
> >>management it came the conclusion
Alyssa Rosenzweig writes:
>> Upstream should do what's best for upstream, not for Intel's "unique"
>> management.
>>
>>Not sure how from Emma explaining how Rb tags were used by Intel
>>management it came the conclusion that it were used in that way only by
>>Intel management.
> > >> I would love to see this be the process across Mesa. We already don't
> > >> rewrite commit messages for freedreno and i915g, and I only have to do
> > >> the rebase (busy-)work for my projects in other areas of the tree.
> > > Likewise for Panfrost. At least, I don't do the rewriting.
> Upstream should do what's best for upstream, not for Intel's "unique"
> management.
>
>Not sure how from Emma explaining how Rb tags were used by Intel
>management it came the conclusion that it were used in that way only by
>Intel management. Spoiler: it is not.
Sorry, I'll make
I'd like gitlab macros :rb: and :ab: that put the tags into the comment.
Marek
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:01 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:56 PM apinheiro wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/10/21 13:55, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
> >
> > I would love to see this be the process
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:56 PM apinheiro wrote:
>
>
> On 12/10/21 13:55, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> I would love to see this be the process across Mesa. We already don't
> rewrite commit messages for freedreno and i915g, and I only have to do
> the rebase (busy-)work for my projects in other
On 12/10/21 13:55, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
I would love to see this be the process across Mesa. We already don't
rewrite commit messages for freedreno and i915g, and I only have to do
the rebase (busy-)work for my projects in other areas of the tree.
Likewise for Panfrost. At least, I don't
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 4:44 PM apinheiro wrote:
>
> Answering here, as it is the second time it is mentioned that Rb is only
> for "who can help support this years from now?", but not specifically to
> this email.
>
> On 7/10/21 15:00, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
> >> I would love to see this be
On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 09:38 +0300, Martin Roukala (néé Peres) wrote:
>
> I'm with Jordan and Emma on this. Just have Marge add as many
> "Approved-by: @USERID" to every commit in the series as there are
> people
> who pressed the "Approve" button, and be done with it :)
>
> Since it is a
Hi,
On 7.10.2021 16.00, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
I would love to see this be the process across Mesa. We already don't
rewrite commit messages for freedreno and i915g, and I only have to do
the rebase (busy-)work for my projects in other areas of the tree.
Likewise for Panfrost. At least, I
Answering here, as it is the second time it is mentioned that Rb is only
for "who can help support this years from now?", but not specifically to
this email.
On 7/10/21 15:00, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
I would love to see this be the process across Mesa. We already don't
rewrite commit
> I would love to see this be the process across Mesa. We already don't
> rewrite commit messages for freedreno and i915g, and I only have to do
> the rebase (busy-)work for my projects in other areas of the tree.
Likewise for Panfrost. At least, I don't do the rewriting. Some Panfrost
devs do,
Despite all the time it takes to add the tags and force-push, I have no
objection to doing that. It captures per-commit reviews well.
Marek
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:17 PM Eero Tamminen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7.10.2021 19.51, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 09:38, Eero Tamminen
>
Hi,
On 7.10.2021 19.51, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 09:38, Eero Tamminen wrote:
This sounds horrible from the point of view of trying to track down
somebody who knows about what's & why's of some old commit that is later
on found to cause issues...
But why would your first
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 09:38, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> This sounds horrible from the point of view of trying to track down
> somebody who knows about what's & why's of some old commit that is later
> on found to cause issues...
But why would your first point of call not be to go back to the review
"
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:38 AM Eero Tamminen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 6.10.2021 23.00, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > Bas Nieuwenhuizen writes:
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:49 PM Jordan Justen
> >> wrote:
> >>> I guess I missed where it was suggested that Marge should remove
> >>> Reviewed-by tags.
Hi,
On 6.10.2021 23.00, Jordan Justen wrote:
Bas Nieuwenhuizen writes:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:49 PM Jordan Justen wrote:
I guess I missed where it was suggested that Marge should remove
Reviewed-by tags. I don't think Marge should ever remove something from
the commit message.
AFAIU
On 07/10/2021 00:56, Emma Anholt wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:07 AM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:24 AM Emma Anholt wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:20 AM Mike Blumenkrantz
wrote:
Hi,
It's recently come to my attention that gitlab has Approvals. Was anyone else
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:28 PM Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> Mike Blumenkrantz writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:27 PM Bas Nieuwenhuizen
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:07 PM Jason Ekstrand
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > My primary grip with approvals or the button is that it's the
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:07 AM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:24 AM Emma Anholt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:20 AM Mike Blumenkrantz
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It's recently come to my attention that gitlab has Approvals. Was anyone
> > > else aware
Bas Nieuwenhuizen writes:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:49 PM Jordan Justen
> wrote:
>>
>> I guess I missed where it was suggested that Marge should remove
>> Reviewed-by tags. I don't think Marge should ever remove something from
>> the commit message.
>
> AFAIU this is upstream Marge behavior.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:46 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:37 PM Mike Blumenkrantz
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:27 PM Bas Nieuwenhuizen <
> b...@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:07 PM Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed,
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:49 PM Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> Mike Blumenkrantz writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:27 PM Bas Nieuwenhuizen
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:07 PM Jason Ekstrand
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > My primary grip with approvals or the button is that it's the
Mike Blumenkrantz writes:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:27 PM Bas Nieuwenhuizen
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:07 PM Jason Ekstrand
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > My primary grip with approvals or the button is that it's the wrong
>> > granularity. It's per-MR instead of per-patch. When people
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:37 PM Mike Blumenkrantz
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:27 PM Bas Nieuwenhuizen
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:07 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:24 AM Emma Anholt wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:20 AM Mike
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:27 PM Bas Nieuwenhuizen
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:07 PM Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:24 AM Emma Anholt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:20 AM Mike Blumenkrantz
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > It's
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:07 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:24 AM Emma Anholt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:20 AM Mike Blumenkrantz
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It's recently come to my attention that gitlab has Approvals. Was anyone
> > > else aware
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:24 AM Emma Anholt wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:20 AM Mike Blumenkrantz
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's recently come to my attention that gitlab has Approvals. Was anyone
> > else aware of this feature? You can just click a button and have your name
> >
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:20 AM Mike Blumenkrantz
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It's recently come to my attention that gitlab has Approvals. Was anyone else
> aware of this feature? You can just click a button and have your name
> recorded in the system as having signed off on landing a patch? Blew my
Hi,
It's recently come to my attention that gitlab has Approvals. Was anyone
else aware of this feature? You can just click a button and have your name
recorded in the system as having signed off on landing a patch? Blew my
mind.
So with that being said, we also have this thing in the Mesa repo
32 matches
Mail list logo
