Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:24:42AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:51:37AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > About the "consistently use Reviewed-by" this is already been proved > > > to be not possible in our team. We use patchwork but we can't say we > > > use

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:51:37AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > About the "consistently use Reviewed-by" this is already been proved > > to be not possible in our team. We use patchwork but we can't say we > > use consistently these replies, lot of the times they came in different > >

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > Hey, > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:08:06AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > Try to sum up the initial problem was patches/series tracking > > > > 2) similar to patchwork with additional feature but missing > >the state tracking part. Maybe would be not hard to add; > > > > Maybe

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

Hey, On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:08:06AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > Try to sum up the initial problem was patches/series tracking > > 2) similar to patchwork with additional feature but missing >the state tracking part. Maybe would be not hard to add; > > Maybe would be worth speaking

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > - Original Message - > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > > If you are worried about more effort for PRs considering the solution > > > > 2 could be an option. If patchew is able to create an "item" (actually > > > > I think they call them just

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

- Original Message - > > > > Hi > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > If you are worried about more effort for PRs considering the solution > > > 2 could be an option. If patchew is able to create an "item" (actually > > > I think they call them just "series") and you are

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > Hi > > - Original Message - > > > If you are worried about more effort for PRs considering the solution > > 2 could be an option. If patchew is able to create an "item" (actually > > I think they call them just "series") and you are able to see the > > merge status and change it if

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

Hi - Original Message - > If you are worried about more effort for PRs considering the solution > 2 could be an option. If patchew is able to create an "item" (actually > I think they call them just "series") and you are able to see the > merge status and change it if needed you hardly

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > On 28 Jul 2017, at 10:23, Frediano Ziglio < fzig...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > > > On 27 Jul 2017, at 17:08, Frediano Ziglio < fzig...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Try to sum up the initial problem was patches/series tracking > > > > > > > > > > So far there are 3 proposal

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> On 28 Jul 2017, at 10:23, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > >>> >>> On 27 Jul 2017, at 17:08, Frediano Ziglio wrote: >>> >>> Try to sum up the initial problem was patches/series tracking >>> >>> So far there are 3 proposal >>> 1) PR/MR (GitLab/GitHub style)

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > > On 27 Jul 2017, at 17:08, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > Try to sum up the initial problem was patches/series tracking > > > > So far there are 3 proposal > > 1) PR/MR (GitLab/GitHub style) > > 2) patchew > > 3a) shared git repository > > 3b) links to external git

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> On 27 Jul 2017, at 17:08, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > Try to sum up the initial problem was patches/series tracking > > So far there are 3 proposal > 1) PR/MR (GitLab/GitHub style) > 2) patchew > 3a) shared git repository > 3b) links to external git repositories > > 1) PR

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:24:52PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > Here is a recent example. For the work on the streaming agent, I recently > ran into a compilation error because spice-prootocol was not the “right one” > for the code being reviewed, which was IIRC in the spice server. It

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> On 27 Jul 2017, at 14:28, Marc-André Lureau > wrote: > > Hi > > - Original Message - >> >>> On 26 Jul 2017, at 11:23, Marc-André Lureau >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> - Original Message - Now, any objection to

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

Hi - Original Message - > > > > > > Imho, we could benefit using a system tracking patch series state from > > > > the > > > > mailing list, such as patchew. But it would probably need some work to > > > > fit > > > > Spice needs. > > > > > > We would benefit from that, yes. But that’s

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > Hi > > - Original Message - > > > > > On 26 Jul 2017, at 11:23, Marc-André Lureau > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > - Original Message - > > >> Now, any objection to > > >> > > >> 1. Recommending that we use git URLs in patches? > > >

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

Hi - Original Message - > > > On 26 Jul 2017, at 11:23, Marc-André Lureau > > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > - Original Message - > >> Now, any objection to > >> > >> 1. Recommending that we use git URLs in patches? > > > > If that may help, but as

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13:47AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > On 26 Jul 2017, at 11:23, Marc-André Lureau > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > - Original Message - > >> Now, any objection to > >> > >> 1. Recommending that we use git URLs in patches? > >

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> On 26 Jul 2017, at 12:19, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > >>> >>> On 25 Jul 2017, at 19:37, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:26:36PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: >>> As long as contributor keep pinging or resending

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> On 26 Jul 2017, at 11:23, Marc-André Lureau > wrote: > > Hi > > - Original Message - >> Now, any objection to >> >> 1. Recommending that we use git URLs in patches? > > If that may help, but as Christophe said, this may be overkill for small > series.

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > > On 25 Jul 2017, at 19:37, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:26:36PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > As long as contributor keep pinging or resending his series, this is > > already the case. > > As Frediano said

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

Hi - Original Message - > Now, any objection to > > 1. Recommending that we use git URLs in patches? If that may help, but as Christophe said, this may be overkill for small series. Let's not make it a rule. > 2. Having a shared location for branches under review? This is really

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:18:37AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > Now, any objection to > > 1. Recommending that we use git URLs in patches? We can emphasize this, but this has been done in the past, and anyone is free to do it anyway if they want ;) For what it's worth, for small series

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:23:28PM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:20:23PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:09:22AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I see several benefits to doing this: > > > > > > >>> > >

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:55:11PM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:09:22AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> I see several benefits to doing this: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 1. We always know exactly which component and branch is being > > > >

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> On 25 Jul 2017, at 19:37, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:26:36PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > As long as contributor keep pinging or resending his series, this is > already the case. As Frediano said at the beginning

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:20:23PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:09:22AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> I see several benefits to doing this: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 1. We always know exactly which component and branch is being > >

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:20:23PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:09:22AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > > >>> I see several benefits to doing this: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 1. We always know exactly which component and branch is being > > > > >>>

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:09:22AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > > >>> I see several benefits to doing this: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 1. We always know exactly which component and branch is being > > > > >>> patched > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > As long as contributor keep

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:26:36PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > >>> As long as contributor keep pinging or resending his series, this is > >>> already the case. > >> > >> As Frediano said at the beginning of the series, “I’m tired of hearing > >> this reply”. > > > > And this is not

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:09:22AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > >>> I see several benefits to doing this: > > > >>> > > > >>> 1. We always know exactly which component and branch is being patched > > > >>> > > > > > > > > As long as contributor keep pinging or resending his series,

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> On 25 Jul 2017, at 12:36, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:23:34PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: >>> and there are plenty of public places you can push your work. >> >> So plenty of places, but by no means a shared one? The point is that >>

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:23:34PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > and there are plenty of public places you can push your work. > > So plenty of places, but by no means a shared one? The point is that > we need a shared one, to be able to view pending reviews at a glance. Note that "we

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> On 24 Jul 2017, at 16:06, Marc-André Lureau > wrote: > > Hi > > - Original Message - >>> On 21 Jul 2017, at 12:41, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 06:18:49AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > Hi > > - Original Message - > > ... > > > > > > > > > > 3. If you want to test, a git checkout is enough to test (assuming > > > > > you > > > > > did > > > > > the git fetch above). Simpler IMO than git am (even if I assume most > > > > > of > > > > > us > > > > > have scripts to

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

Hi - Original Message - > ... > > > > > > > 3. If you want to test, a git checkout is enough to test (assuming you > > > > did > > > > the git fetch above). Simpler IMO than git am (even if I assume most of > > > > us > > > > have scripts to process incoming mail) > > > > qemu uses

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

... > > > > 3. If you want to test, a git checkout is enough to test (assuming you > > > did > > > the git fetch above). Simpler IMO than git am (even if I assume most of > > > us > > > have scripts to process incoming mail) > > qemu uses patchew, I think it would be worth to consider it for

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

Hi - Original Message - > > > > > On 21 Jul 2017, at 12:41, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 06:18:49AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > >>> Beside that I wonder why I had to wait 8 months for these reviews, > > >>> not counting

Re: [Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

> > > On 21 Jul 2017, at 12:41, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 06:18:49AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > >>> Beside that I wonder why I had to wait 8 months for these reviews, > >>> not counting the time to decide to rewrite this part of code