Re: Gerrit

Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-14T17:56:27Z

> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:31:28 -0400
> From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> 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.

Thanks.

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

It is too wordy in some parts, and in others don't say enough. For
example, a part like this:

> Tom de Vries has posted comments on this change. ( https://gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io/r/c/binutils-gdb/+/28 )
>
> Change subject: [gdb] Only force INTERP_CONSOLE ui_out for breakpoint commands in MI mode

is completely redundant (and long lines make it look ugly).

The epilogue, viz.:

> Gerrit-Project: binutils-gdb
> Gerrit-Branch: master
> Gerrit-Change-Id: Id1771e7fcc9496a7d97ec2b2ea6b1487596f1ef7
> Gerrit-Change-Number: 28
> Gerrit-PatchSet: 1
> Gerrit-Owner: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
> Gerrit-Reviewer: Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>
> Gerrit-Reviewer: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:45:58 +0000
> Gerrit-HasComments: No
> Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
> Gerrit-MessageType: comment

seems also mostly useless.

OTOH, a message such as this:

> Patch Set 2:
>
> This change is ready for review.

doesn't show the patch set at all, so it's also unhelpful.

> > 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.

Not only the difstat part, but also the ChangeLog part.

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

I'd prefer to see the whole commit log message with the rationale
etc., it sometimes touches subjects where I'd like to voice an
opinion, even if that's not only about documentation.

> > 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.

Maybe we should ask a lwayer, then.

> 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.

Not exactly: having the code in a branch of our repository (again,
assuming it can be regarded as "ours") means we are redistributing it,
whereas having it in an email does not.