Re: Actually setting up patchwork on sourceware

Re: Actually setting up patchwork on sourceware

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

> [...]  Frank, did you get a chance to look at it?  I have
> documented[1] the process I had followed to do the patchwork setup
> on my host.  [...]

Sorry, I was under the impression that y'all were still choosing
between patchwork and other alternatives.  (Maybe "y'all" included gdb
folks, cc:'d.)  We'd love not to have to have N new but similar
widgets running on sourceware.

- FChE

Re: Actually setting up patchwork on sourceware

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 776 bytes --]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:17:26PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> > [...]  Frank, did you get a chance to look at it?  I have
> > documented[1] the process I had followed to do the patchwork setup
> > on my host.  [...]
> 
> Sorry, I was under the impression that y'all were still choosing
> between patchwork and other alternatives.  (Maybe "y'all" included gdb
> folks, cc:'d.)  We'd love not to have to have N new but similar
> widgets running on sourceware.

I had set up a test instance for gdb folks too and Gary had requested
that I also migrate the gdb instance from my server to sourceware
since it would take a while for gdb to decide on their final choice,
so I'm not sure if it's worth our while to wait for that to happen.

Siddhesh

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: Actually setting up patchwork on sourceware

[Pedro Alves]

On 05/13/14 07:04, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:17:26PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> Hi -
>>
>>> [...]  Frank, did you get a chance to look at it?  I have
>>> documented[1] the process I had followed to do the patchwork setup
>>> on my host.  [...]
>>
>> Sorry, I was under the impression that y'all were still choosing
>> between patchwork and other alternatives.  (Maybe "y'all" included gdb
>> folks, cc:'d.)  We'd love not to have to have N new but similar
>> widgets running on sourceware.
> 
> I had set up a test instance for gdb folks too and Gary had requested
> that I also migrate the gdb instance from my server to sourceware
> since it would take a while for gdb to decide on their final choice,
> so I'm not sure if it's worth our while to wait for that to happen.

Yes, please migrate gdb's too.  At least myself, I'm finding the
gdb instance useful.  As long as it exists, might as well have it set
up alongside glibc's.

-- 
Pedro Alves

Re: Actually setting up patchwork on sourceware

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1260 bytes --]

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:01:48AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/13/14 07:04, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:17:26PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >> Hi -
> >>
> >>> [...]  Frank, did you get a chance to look at it?  I have
> >>> documented[1] the process I had followed to do the patchwork setup
> >>> on my host.  [...]
> >>
> >> Sorry, I was under the impression that y'all were still choosing
> >> between patchwork and other alternatives.  (Maybe "y'all" included gdb
> >> folks, cc:'d.)  We'd love not to have to have N new but similar
> >> widgets running on sourceware.
> > 
> > I had set up a test instance for gdb folks too and Gary had requested
> > that I also migrate the gdb instance from my server to sourceware
> > since it would take a while for gdb to decide on their final choice,
> > so I'm not sure if it's worth our while to wait for that to happen.
> 
> Yes, please migrate gdb's too.  At least myself, I'm finding the
> gdb instance useful.  As long as it exists, might as well have it set
> up alongside glibc's.

That's great.  Given that 10 days have past since your response, is it
safe to assume that nobody in the gdb community is opposed to using
patchwork?

Siddhesh

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: Actually setting up patchwork on sourceware

[Pedro Alves]

On 05/23/2014 01:51 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:01:48AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/13/14 07:04, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:17:26PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>>> Hi -
>>>>
>>>>> [...]  Frank, did you get a chance to look at it?  I have
>>>>> documented[1] the process I had followed to do the patchwork setup
>>>>> on my host.  [...]
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I was under the impression that y'all were still choosing
>>>> between patchwork and other alternatives.  (Maybe "y'all" included gdb
>>>> folks, cc:'d.)  We'd love not to have to have N new but similar
>>>> widgets running on sourceware.
>>>
>>> I had set up a test instance for gdb folks too and Gary had requested
>>> that I also migrate the gdb instance from my server to sourceware
>>> since it would take a while for gdb to decide on their final choice,
>>> so I'm not sure if it's worth our while to wait for that to happen.
>>
>> Yes, please migrate gdb's too.  At least myself, I'm finding the
>> gdb instance useful.  As long as it exists, might as well have it set
>> up alongside glibc's.
> 
> That's great.  Given that 10 days have past since your response, is it
> safe to assume that nobody in the gdb community is opposed to using
> patchwork?

Even if we end up using some other system for uploading patches,
patchwork will still be useful for patches that end up sent
through email.  And, even if not all maintainers and frequent contributors
engage in updating the tracker, that's OK -- it works just the
same.  It absolutely imposes zero change on everyone's workflow.

So I can't imagine why would anyone be opposed.

-- 
Pedro Alves