From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12861 invoked by alias); 21 May 2014 14:47:52 -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 12832 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2014 14:47:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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; Wed, 21 May 2014 14:47:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4LElk9E021744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 May 2014 10:47:46 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-182.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.182]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4LElj2G021162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 21 May 2014 10:47:45 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Gary Benson , Stan Shebs , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Patchwork patch tracking system References: <20140402100842.GA956@blade.nx> <533F3713.40700@earthlink.net> <20140417135040.GA891@blade.nx> <20140422130652.GG5790@adacore.com> <8738gw6p4b.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <8738gw6p4b.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:07:32 -0600") Message-ID: <87tx8jnq7j.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 Tom> I've been trying the patchworks install as well. I don't find it all Tom> that useful myself, but maybe it would be better if more people were Tom> using it. Let me walk that back a little. I've been trying it again and it is useful. I've been using it every day. At the very least it gives us a global list of what has not been reviewed. And, the patchwork command-line client seems quite nice; "pwclient git-am" seems truly useful, though I haven't had cause to use it yet. A few things would make it nicer for use with gdb: 1. If it knew about patch series. Right now it drops (the usually quite useful) "patch 0" mail and treats each patch as a separate entity. I looked at the patchwork mailing list and while this topic has come up, nobody has implemented the needed features. 2. Building on #1, if it could tell when a patch series obsoletes an older series. I think this would work best with patch series support, because it's common when resubmitting for patches to change their subject and otherwise be "untrackable", whereas we could easily adopt a convention that the new series have the same title for the cover letter. 3. If it ignored "FYI" patches. This step could be applied after #2 so that the final courtesy copy would zap the old series from the UI. 4. If we ran the existing patchwork automatic zapper regularly so that commits could remove patches from the UI. One final thing that would be useful is if a mention of a PR in a gdb-patches mail caused some note to be posted to Bugzilla -- ideally a link to the email in our archives, but a link to the appropriate entry in patchwork would be an acceptable substitute. Tom