From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id Az+/A4mnD2aRJCQAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 03:26:01 -0400 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=MCNPAFh3; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id EEE421E0C0; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 03:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.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 ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D37B71E091 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 03:25:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEF43858431 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:25:57 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BCEF43858431 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1712301957; bh=RlKxn1gRY735/SILHw9ciEloZggKTThjMghKFspQkVs=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=MCNPAFh3oiG0nnM1rJ9V0dRafuV4jHdtCLZZ6vWclTNiA5LKx/cKQyhHGFXdyf4xu OgsDqg2Oo1VcJ0tv9JpPEFCcGuFsuFgYklSsBSdfp2NbbI6Hj0MieQdQk3ZlBUnxLd Mw27jURx66W6ClreqP42eO/M3YSA1Ghuw+fo79lo= Received: from mail-ej1-x62f.google.com (mail-ej1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C07E3846403 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:22:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 1C07E3846403 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 1C07E3846403 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712301760; cv=none; b=V2r7OnoMd4EHPlgBSi4xbdMlTCAFNvD77PGcfnQog8rUMshRoArNHbdxcsbd/vkvdvUGHlS2KDHo/y5RSD3oZ6ny7oOnN3Q6rC5+Ji7m8NGWe6nxCWhms3oFZQsiirh6EIpvJB/pYuqPRutCVthVIVN+ecjAqfylPx0NsfeCd8k= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712301760; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RlKxn1gRY735/SILHw9ciEloZggKTThjMghKFspQkVs=; h=DKIM-Signature:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To; b=KTvA8FLOL+SaToBnDhkrYMyOHIIs+5NYyanAmd3kyXlnKK8ndbDoFfQ0t2TEqkTwagAPImFKZInmHQ01ozR7GkBCEwewRQ1p6Ize6WNZW1jvtLj5aTTZcJRX5CHucAwk9dYV1jsc6iyGuj2IZD4dq65BCrY2sP+HUnIK7hZ62E4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by mail-ej1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a44ad785a44so222630666b.3 for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:22:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712301756; x=1712906556; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RlKxn1gRY735/SILHw9ciEloZggKTThjMghKFspQkVs=; b=bDRjQtZK+aTK7iSJ9s94LZaJ+4DgWA/1eDZpAmvDFIz9IGXvzvoEZTRDhwt6fNgJSI 2Z2wcRJAEUPPwd4XaMfuP89PcBgTWI8twNeb/jB2NFHitRaYow+G8+iQv97TsD+3pUUc g1NI9o7lPrOW4al8uxSVEfsHnLmuUvp7RSMfJ5sRodzQfNgZu2t8oRRlWnjD0ofOVjlm 0lei1YKXbcXfmToDk/6mSW5g3OzpokBvNgNdwaZtJTLbH34V642VrUREUIrj4NNiDN1D GQgiUFERKbpAooVTBcNT8XZQFVVSsILmReWZcAsx5QBiCmc9D8quXQSPMdNI0W6JGFP7 ylGg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW9DxLaQy6Bq+jri8Dr9wlTpm076U9xy+wygwt/fTP1cIKRL4ORIpnKokWDyYXWon/+/6m3Xj6cnVZAA8SRcr1Vess= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxyq4B9Ll8XqS/Al1FuSpua8aRhuGrxUI/m9sZCPgFEG6W3Ue/+ khsSGA6GFw1REUjHFOrlseKoyhx8U8/6ArpsTeeJGnAmaRqBcBAbzuEuIiLlrx8cRNaJWAlGgaa QHx50IrnHW+v1zcJqhXDPT8+qol+49YyyuEQCNg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHmRvujbWjF8S10baq+jZrZy3TYWmhsvc4lFRP5TuKBRSqNbPgwOfXvnhjGkZ5z1lYqMX5E/Hr4IeKcBcj3GMI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f847:b0:a4e:114e:25cb with SMTP id ks7-20020a170906f84700b00a4e114e25cbmr354008ejb.53.1712301755712; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:22:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0d343d67-33e0-4f63-b385-8ae360bc68dc@suse.com> In-Reply-To: <0d343d67-33e0-4f63-b385-8ae360bc68dc@suse.com> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:22:28 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Patches submission policy change To: Jan Beulich Cc: Maxim Kuvyrkov , Thiago Bauermann , Adhemerval Zanella , binutils@sourceware.org, GCC Mailing List , gdb@sourceware.org, Nick Clifton , Richard Biener , Jakub Jelinek , Joel Brobecker , "Carlos O'Donell" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Christophe Lyon via Gdb Reply-To: Christophe Lyon Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 10:12, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 03.04.2024 15:11, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:30, Jan Beulich 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 simplifyin= g > >>> workflows, I=E2=80=99d like to request a patch submission policy chan= ge, 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 =E2=80= =9Cgit > >>> send-email=E2=80=9D 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). Agreed. > > >> Even assuming sending patches bi-modal (inline and as attachment) work= s > >> (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 patc= hes. > > 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? > Sorry, I don't know how patchwork would handle such a case. Thanks, Christophe > Jan >