From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3231 invoked by alias); 26 May 2014 10:21:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 3213 invoked by uid 89); 26 May 2014 10:21:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: popelka.ms.mff.cuni.cz Received: from popelka.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO popelka.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.20.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 May 2014 10:21:08 +0000 Received: from domone.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (popelka.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.20.131]) by popelka.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF50048D62; Mon, 26 May 2014 12:20:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: by domone.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4F8405F815; Mon, 26 May 2014 12:20:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 10:41:00 -0000 From: =?utf-8?B?T25kxZllaiBCw61sa2E=?= To: Andreas Jaeger Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , Siddhesh Poyarekar , GNU C Library , gdb@sourceware.org, carlos@redhat.com, fche@redhat.com, gbenson@redhat.com Subject: Re: patchwork.sourceware.org is live! Message-ID: <20140526102052.GA18682@domone> References: <20140523211338.GK12497@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <5382E7F2.4020506@suse.com> <5382EF22.4060705@suse.com> <5382F50E.7040702@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5382F50E.7040702@suse.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:02:22AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On 05/26/2014 09:52 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On 26 May 2014 13:07, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > >> > >> What happens if one person says "fine" while another one disagrees? Is > >> Accepted then the right state for this? > > > > The first reviewer sets 'Accepted' (assuming she doesn't need another > > reviewer to validate) and if another reviewer disagrees then he can > > set the status back to 'Under Review'. if he agrees, then there's no > > need to change any status. > > > >> Could you write up a workflow: Live of a patch, something like: > >> 1. Patch gets submitted, system puts patch into state NEW > >> 2. Reviewer comments on it: > >> a) Disagrees: Sets it to > >> b) agrees: Sets it to > >> c) Not a patch for glibc, set it to Not Applicable > >> 3. Patch gets committed: Set it to Commited/Accepted > > > > That's a good idea. I have modified the current document[1] and also > > added the Committed status to the document. Once we have consensus on > > adding the new 'Committed' status, I'll also add it to patchwork. > > > > Siddhesh > > [1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Patch%20Review%20Workflow > > > > thanks, that answers my current ;) questions nicely, > That should be set automatically. I use a following script to detect commited patches. tester(){ } rm failed rm applied rm uncompiled PATCHES=`~/pwork/pwclient list -s New | tail -n +4| awk '{print $1}'` for I in $PATCHES; do cd $GLIBC/glibc ~/pwork/pwclient get $I if git apply -R /tmp/patch 2>/dev/null; then git apply /tmp/patch 2>/dev/null echo already applied ~/pwork/pwclient info $I ~/pwork/pwclient info $I >> applied elif git apply /tmp/patch 2>/dev/null; then tester cd $GLIBC/glibc git apply -R /tmp/patch 2>/dev/null else echo cannot apply ~/pwork/pwclient info $I ~/pwork/pwclient info $I >> failed fi done