Re: patchwork.sourceware.org is live!

[Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.com>]

On 05/26/2014 09:29 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 26 May 2014 12:36, Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.com> wrote:
>> A patch that is merged, should have "Accepted", correct? so, patches
>> that are already committed should be changed to have this...
>>
>> If i just comment on a patch with a "Looks fine", should I say "Under
>> Review" - and then the submitter sets this to "Accepted"?
> 
> 'Under Review' is a transitional state for a reviewer to 'take' a
> patch off the queue for review.
> 
> We don't differentiate between review completion and commit; I guess

Ah...

> we should since the reviewer is not always responsible for commiting
> the change.  May I add an additional status 'Committed' to indicate
> this?  That way a reviewer sets 'Accepted' when the patch looks good
> and the committer changes state to 'Committed' when the change is in
> git.  If the reviewer commits the change herself (i.e. when the
> submitter does not have commit access), the former may set status to
> 'Committed' directly.
> 
> Thoughts?


What happens if one person says "fine" while another one disagrees? Is
Accepted then the right state for this?

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


Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
    GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126