From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28643 invoked by alias); 26 May 2014 07:37:15 -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 28625 invoked by uid 89); 26 May 2014 07:37:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 26 May 2014 07:37:13 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAEFAC0C; Mon, 26 May 2014 07:37:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5382EF22.4060705@suse.com> Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 07:52:00 -0000 From: Andreas Jaeger 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: Siddhesh Poyarekar , GNU C Library , gdb@sourceware.org, carlos@redhat.com, fche@redhat.com, gbenson@redhat.com Subject: Re: patchwork.sourceware.org is live! References: <20140523211338.GK12497@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <5382E7F2.4020506@suse.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 On 05/26/2014 09:29 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 26 May 2014 12:36, Andreas Jaeger 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