From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26107 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2019 14:37:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 26098 invoked by uid 89); 20 Oct 2019 14:37:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=newer, sufficiently, online, letter X-HELO: gateway32.websitewelcome.com Received: from gateway32.websitewelcome.com (HELO gateway32.websitewelcome.com) (192.185.145.187) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Oct 2019 14:37:15 +0000 Received: from cm17.websitewelcome.com (cm17.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.20]) by gateway32.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4594F9FDC6 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2019 09:37:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id MCKXicr4ZPUvSMCKXi8eTP; Sun, 20 Oct 2019 09:37:13 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From: Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=jLDn1yd8tzvTS/huQhNcl9c5jOqpIEggscE3UD3S0Z8=; b=bcORipoonF/L2LVtYpwuoKoCE/ iv9aLrcIOhQW1QVWwXOcaaculSVP4pQNIRCHqTlW99T1kqQnZlZj1a3FQjJf28vL9BNJXvFi1BXmg kQHnoxUCq7vETQQv3fitwBq7d; Received: from 75-166-66-104.hlrn.qwest.net ([75.166.66.104]:45146 helo=bapiya) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1iMCKW-0032Lk-Os; Sun, 20 Oct 2019 08:37:12 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: some thoughts on gerrit Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 14:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <877e4z8ovc.fsf@tromey.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg00694.txt.bz2 After using gerrit for gdb for just this past week, I have mixed feelings, which I thought I'd share. The upside is pretty good -- basically what I was hoping for when we discussed this topic at Cauldron. The major benefits is that it's easy to see the status of patches. A benefit I didn't predict is that it's a bit simpler to submit patches. In particular, my personal email host doesn't like it if I send log series, so I have to remember to throttle when using send-email -- but with gerrit that's a non-issue, because it is just a push. So far the major downsides are related to patch series. [[[ First, as an aside, my most recent patch series does show up here: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-10/authors.html (Search for "RAII class" under the name "Tom Tromey (Code Review)") ...but it somehow doesn't show up here: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-10/threads.html ]]] Anyway, with series we are missing two things that email had: namely, the cover letter, and threading. The cover letter is often a good guide to what is going on in the series. See for example: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-10/msg00590.html It seems a shame to lose this. One counter-argument about the cover letter I thought of is that, because it doesn't end up in the history, maybe the lack of it will force us to make each commit message even clearer. And, we should do that ... it's just that the roadmap is handy when reviewing. I wonder if there'd be a way to make "git review" prompt for a cover letter and attach it somewhere as a comment. Lack of threading means it is hard to see how patches relate when reading in email. Maybe this can be fixed in gerrit? I wonder a little if a sufficiently configured patchworks would be a better fit for gdb. The major problem with the current patchworks is that it doesn't automatically remove patches when they are checked in. However, a newer version of patchworks can do this, especially if we augment it with a commit hook to add a UUID to the commit message (which we've already accepted for gerrit...). It seems easy to set this up. Another drawback of patchworks is that reviews aren't done online -- you still use email. This doesn't bother me, but maybe it's an important consideration for others. I'm not saying we should definitely switch -- just that I've noticed some drawbacks to gerrit as compared to email, and I am wondering if we can somehow preserve more of the good things. Tom