Re: Gerrit

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>]

On 2019-10-14 13:12, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I see some emails from Gerrit, does it mean you already set that up?
> Because those emails leave a lot to be desired, IMO.

Yes, I just did.

The content of the emails is fully configurable. We can work on 
improving them if you have specific pain points or suggestions.

The page here describes which emails are sent, and what variable 
information about each change is available to include in the email:

https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/config-mail.html

> 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.

What do you mean by "beginning of a patch", do you mean the diff stat 
that shows the changed files? If so, I believe this information is 
available in the notification sent for a new change.

This patch, for example:

   https://gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io/r/c/binutils-gdb/+/29

resulted in this message being sent:

  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-10/msg00371.html

And it contains:

   M gdb/block.c
   M gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/varval.exp
   2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Does that help?

>> 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 can only guess, but probably not.

> 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?

That goes into lawyer territory, so I can't give a definitive answer.  
The way I see it is that it's not really different than that person 
posting a patch with the same content on the mailing list.  It's the 
same content, just a different format.

Simon