From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20122 invoked by alias); 26 May 2014 07:29:22 -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 20098 invoked by uid 89); 26 May 2014 07:29:21 -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-we0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f179.google.com) (74.125.82.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 26 May 2014 07:29:19 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id q59so7416281wes.24 for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 00:29:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.157.68 with SMTP id wk4mr27255686wjb.42.1401089356300; Mon, 26 May 2014 00:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.195.12.43 with HTTP; Mon, 26 May 2014 00:29:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5382E7F2.4020506@suse.com> References: <20140523211338.GK12497@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <5382E7F2.4020506@suse.com> Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 07:37:00 -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/msg00061.txt.bz2 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 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? Siddhesh -- http://siddhesh.in