From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id Lz9NIXsJXGOMnxEAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:55:23 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 77A3F1E11E; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=kT8iBvRh; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAEF61E0D3 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B563858293 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 16:55:22 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 20B563858293 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1666976122; bh=RtT3/4z9G5zLt5aMPnWnbQ7qcRuxWaehpugpVokoJEs=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=kT8iBvRhvVN/89n0COQdNUGIHaU1tJEka3NvmVucpwVmdd3w8ybJe66BbGUdG+G2s pX0f3Mn38a64Xe1bZHelxVOQY9VHGRxkHpLgQz50yYtI5sEg3zSccT8f6gQRl2KqSS vYla4RV1wVDTv7GJJ1pRlRsyksAOVRaUBA4zUnBc= Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43C7D3858D20 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 16:54:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 43C7D3858D20 Received: from [10.0.235.143] (modemcable075.250-20-96.mc.videotron.ca [96.20.250.75]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A519C1E0D3; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <916a0332-306b-e28b-f750-d7abae61836c@simark.ca> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:54:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.0 Subject: Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF? Content-Language: fr To: John Baldwin , Luis Machado , "gdb@sourceware.org" References: <83485199-965e-7ff5-1dc8-d027b74b56f7@arm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Mark Wielaard Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 2022-10-28 12 h 51, John Baldwin wrote: > On 10/28/22 9:16 AM, Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote: >> On 2022-10-27 06 h 47, Luis Machado via Gdb wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Having suggested a few topics for the GDB BoF (I noticed they were discussed, to some extent), are there >>> any concrete plans from the GDB global maintainers (leadership? I don't know how to call it) to address >>> some of those concerns? >>> >>> Simon was kind enough to cleanup the patchworks instance, though that is not yet fully integrated into >>> something we can easily use to do tests/CI. I see the number of unreviewed patches is growing again. >>> >>> For example, it is not easy to pick a patch to review. You need to locate the entry in your inbox so you >>> can reply to it. >> >> I do not know of a way to trigger CI tests from Patchwork, that would >> perhaps be a question for Mark (added in CC). >> >> On a personal note, coming back from the Cauldron, I set myself a goal >> to do more reviews as part of my daily work.  I'm trying to do around 1 >> hour a day of upstream reviews, and to choose what to review, I use >> patchwork, sorting patches by oldest date.  I check if the patch I'm >> looking at has already been reviewed, merged, or superseded by a new >> version, and if so I update its status.  Rinse and repeat until I find a >> patch that needs reviewing.  Otherwise, just looking at my inbox's >> gdb-patches folder with thousands of unread messages, I don't know what >> to start with.  Just by myself, I certainly won't get through the whole >> list of patches pending review, but I think it is a somewhat fair >> algorithm.  So in that regard, patchwork is useful for me. > > Interesting.  Does the date factor in pings?  That is, if you ping a series > does it move earlier in the list or does it keep its original date? > > Actually, I guess not all pings work.  I have a series I posted back on > July 7th and have pinged a few times since that doesn't show up in patchworks. > (And I only confirmed that by finding some other closed patch with my username > so I could do a query by username.)  Maybe because the pings were all replies > that had 'Re:' prefixes in the subject?  If we need to format pings in a > certain way, that would be good to know.  Alternatively, if old patch series > just need to be re-posted that would also be good to know. > > The web UI for patchworks also seems a bit buggy.  Not sure who to provide > feedback to?  Trying to do a text search on a series name (e.g. putting a > keyword in the series name field) just ignores the text field and returns all > patches.  Also, if you click on a different field like Submitter and then try > to go to another page, it resets the sort order on the second page to sort by > Date.  If you then change the sorting key on the second page, it reverts back > to the first page with the new key.  I haven't tried manually constructing the > parameters in the URL to get to the second page with a new key. Indeed, patches that were submitted previously don't appear. Simon