On 18 May 2012 12:40, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/05/12 19:26 , Michal Suchanek wrote: >> >> On 18 May 2012 01:14, Peter Hutterer<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:39:55AM +0200, Ernst Sjöstrand wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> (sorry for jumping in from the outside and breaking the thread!) >>>> >>>> I read about this problem and wanted to offer a suggestion! >>>> >>>> What if you set up a Gerrit server for git.freedesktop.org? That's the >>>> tool the Android OpenSource project uses among other things: >>>> https://android-review.googlesource.com/ >>>> Perhaps if it was easier to contribute to reviewing code, more people >>>> would do it more often? >>> >>> >>>> It's also a very nice tool I have to say, I use it every day at work. >>>> It's easy to integrate with automatic >>>> testing of patchsets before they're submitted to the repository for >>>> example. >>> >>> >>> tbh I doubt what we have is a tool problem. Patches are sent to the list >>> and >>> can be reviewed quite easily there (for subscribers, anyway). The issue >>> we >>> have is manpower and, more importantly, manpower of people with enough >>> knowledge to judge whether a patchset has side-effects beyond the >>> obvious. >>> >>> in the end, such patches tend fall on the shoulders of a few and adding >>> another tool that they have to check will increase, not decrease, the >>> workload for those. >> >> >> tbh using a mailing list for that looks very impractical. >> >> - patches get missed completely > > > true. we do encourage people to re-submit. which, aside from the obvious > disadvantage, has advantages too. I found the problem with any todo list is > that sooner or later it becomes so long that you either have to wipe it (by > switching to a different system sometimes) or you start ignoring stuff > anyway. > > given that one of the problems is reviewer bandwidth, I expect this to > happen with any new tool. patchwork was great in the first few weeks, now > it's a kitchensink great for getting URLs and not much else.
Given that reviewer bandwidth is scarce it would be perhaps helpful to spare it by having a tool that presents all the not-yet-reviewed patches in one place rather than reviewers fishing for them in the mailing list or in the patchwork. > > requiring people to ping when patches get missed at least notifies us which > patches have people behind them that care. a feature that gets submitted > once, forgotten and no-one pings for it may not have been that important to > begin with. When you get the 5th patch for the same regression submitted the third time it starts to look like shouting your patches off a cliff in the dead of the night. > > >> - there is no track of what is related to what (as in the part of the >> same patchset or new revision of the same patchset) > > > patch are usually in numbered series, in threads, with new revisinos being > prefixed with "v2", "v3", etc. requires submitter discipline but it works to > some degree. And as some of the patches get replies they get out of order and completely out of context. > > >> - you get a lots of list noise due to patches being sent one by one > > > I'm not sure I follow this argument, can you expand? Like a series of 10+ patches for some part of the X server I do not understand landing on the list several times. I guess some people are fond of replying to the patches and quoting them in their email client and I can see that as nice feature but it's paid for by tons of list traffic. Necessarily large part of that is meaningless to most. The alternative is, of course, a link to git branch or something like that. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
