From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10369 invoked by alias); 26 May 2014 07:52:42 -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 10349 invoked by uid 89); 26 May 2014 07:52:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-wg0-f43.google.com Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 26 May 2014 07:52:40 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l18so7415872wgh.2 for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 00:52:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.88.106 with SMTP id bf10mr27924823wjb.26.1401090757377; Mon, 26 May 2014 00:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.195.12.43 with HTTP; Mon, 26 May 2014 00:52:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5382EF22.4060705@suse.com> References: <20140523211338.GK12497@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <5382E7F2.4020506@suse.com> <5382EF22.4060705@suse.com> Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 08:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: patchwork.sourceware.org is live! From: Siddhesh Poyarekar To: Andreas Jaeger Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , GNU C Library , gdb@sourceware.org, carlos@redhat.com, fche@redhat.com, gbenson@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 On 26 May 2014 13:07, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > What happens if one person says "fine" while another one disagrees? Is > Accepted then the right state for this? The first reviewer sets 'Accepted' (assuming she doesn't need another reviewer to validate) and if another reviewer disagrees then he can set the status back to 'Under Review'. if he agrees, then there's no need to change any status. > 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 That's a good idea. I have modified the current document[1] and also added the Committed status to the document. Once we have consensus on adding the new 'Committed' status, I'll also add it to patchwork. Siddhesh [1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Patch%20Review%20Workflow -- http://siddhesh.in