On 31/03/12 09:56, Antoine Musso wrote: > On March 30 2012 at 21:25, Platonides wrote: > <snip> >> How would you script that if you don't have the files? (as they are >> pending a merge) >> Could we have a branch which included all non-abandoned patches? Or >> maybe all patches whose total feedback is not negative. > > One just have to fetch the non-merged change from Gerrit. Git magic is: > > # Fetch change 1234 > $ git fetch gerrit refs/changes/34/1234 > > # Switch to that branch: > $ git checkout FETCH_HEAD > > Remember that "refs/changes/34/1234" is just a pointer to some commit > object exactly like "master". So you can switch to it, run your tests > and submit their results.
And how do I know that what I need is refs/changes/34/1234 ? Do you have a way of listing all changes of a certain repository? > <snip> >>> We should have less fixme nowadays since we have adopted a pre merge >>> review, <snip> >> >> Can someone measure at CodeReview the number of revisions which went to >> fixme after having been on ok? gerrit system allowing pre-review doesn't >> help with the 'false review rate'. >> There *will* be bugs which get merged into the main repo. Not every >> master status will be perfectly stable, as we wish it were. >> Ability to mark the patchsets as fixme is a good tool. If we had a list >> of follow-ups in gerrit, that would also be useful. > > We already have the fixme feature. That is done by down voting a > patchset in the codereview field (the infamous : "I would prefer that > you didn't submit this"). > > The follow up we have been abusing is also build in since you usually > just send a second patch. A follow up to a previous merge is either a > new feature or a bug fix, it can still reference the change number but I > am not sure there is any value in doing so. Suppose A created a foo module in r12345, this was reviewed by B. With the old system, if I perform a change: Don't leak passwords in the foo module. Follow-up r12345. Then both A and B get alerted of that change, it is listed in the page, when C goes to cherry-pick the foo module to production, he notices it immediatly and also includes the follow-up. > Whenever someone would need to use followup, he should probably use a > branch instead. Branch are cheap, use them :-] This makes no sense. You're probably thinking on a feature made of revisions linked with follow-ups, which should have been a branch in svn. Note however that not having a state with all the code, you don't notice the changes. And if you don't see them until they are merged, you're back with the same intermingled revisions. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
