Re: Patches submission policy change

Jan Beulich via Gdb
2024-04-04T08:13:51Z

On 03.04.2024 15:11, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:30, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Dear release managers and developers,
>>>
>>> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
>>> workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
>>> that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during the
>>> last GNU toolchain office hours meeting [1] (2024-03-28).
>>>
>>> Benefits or this change include:
>>> - Increased compatibility with precommit CI
>>> - No need to manually edit patches before submitting, thus the “git
>>> send-email” workflow is simplified
>>> - Patch reviewers can be confident that the committed patch will be
>>> exactly what they approved
>>> - Precommit CI can test exactly what has been submitted
>>>
>>> Any concerns/objections?
>>
>> Yes: Patch size. And no, not sending patches inline is bad practice.
> Not sure what you mean? Do you mean sending patches as attachments is
> bad practice?

Yes. It makes it difficult to reply to them (with proper reply context).

>> Even assuming sending patches bi-modal (inline and as attachment) works
>> (please indicate whether that's the case), it would mean extra work on
>> the sending side.
>>
> For the CI perspective, we use what patchwork is able to detect as patches.
> Looking at recent patches submissions, it seems patchwork is able to
> cope with the output of git format-patch/git send-email, as well as
> attachments.
> There are cases where patchwork is not able to detect the patch, but I
> don't know patchwork's exact specifications.

Question was though: If a patch was sent inline plus attachment, what
would CI use as the patch to apply? IOW would it be an option to
attach the un-stripped patch, while inlining the stripped one?

Jan