Re: Gerrit (was: [PATCH] gdb: remove unused includes from dwarf2read.c)

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:18:36 -0400
> From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > Does this mean that now we need to look for patches in two places?
> > Can Gerrit be set up to forward the review comments to the list?
> > 
> > Also, if some of us decides to do the review on Gerrit, does it mean
> > all the others need to do that as well?
> 
> Hi Eli,
> 
> Yes, Gerrit can be set to send notifications to an arbitrary email, so 
> we can set it to send them to gdb-patches.  We have talked about that 
> earlier, it's just not done yet.  I'll look into it right now.

I see some emails from Gerrit, does it mean you already set that up?
Because those emails leave a lot to be desired, IMO.

Anyway, seeing the beginning of a patch was the only way for me to
know that a patch needs me to review the documentation parts.  Now I
wonder how I can do that when the patch is posted on Gerrit.

> As long as we use Gerrit and mail patches in parallel, people are free 
> to send patches using the system they prefer.  I think it's simpler if 
> reviewers use the system that was chosen by the patch author (reply on 
> Gerrit if the patch is on Gerrit, reply by email if the patch is by 
> email).

But I cannot reply on Gerrit without registering there, can I?

I'm also somewhat bothered by what I've read on the wiki.  I
understand that anyone can register on Gerrit, and after that push
patches for review, independently of their write access to the
sourceware repository.  Then, if gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io is
associated with or operated by FSF/GNU, it would mean we provide a way
for random people to push changes to GDB to a public repository
affiliated with us, without having any control on what is being pushed
ahead of the push.  Suppose someone pushes there changes that violate
the GPL, or do something else that is against the GNU policies --
wouldn't that appear as if we are "authorizing" those just by having
that code in the repository, even though it's on a branch and haven't
yet been admitted to sourceware?

Thanks.