From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17071 invoked by alias); 23 May 2014 16:23:45 -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 17043 invoked by uid 89); 23 May 2014 16:23:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:23:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4NGNfFr016032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 23 May 2014 12:23:41 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4NGNb2k022511; Fri, 23 May 2014 12:23:38 -0400 Message-ID: <537F7609.4010209@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:23:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Siddhesh Poyarekar CC: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Siddhesh Poyarekar , "Joseph S. Myers" , GNU C Library , carlos@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Actually setting up patchwork on sourceware References: <20140402055454.GB23931@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <20140512171726.GB6983@redhat.com> <20140513060412.GB21360@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <5371DF7C.7060408@gmail.com> <20140523125151.GF14500@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140523125151.GF14500@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 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