Patchwork-Status via email (was: Re: [meta-networking][PATCH] crda: fix build issue do to missing python module)

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 11:25 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 08:41:14AM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-02-06 at 09:10 -0800, akuster808 wrote:
> > > please drop. this is fixed via a change in master-next.
> > > 
> > > http://cgit.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/commit/?h=master-next&id=2e83e33c592543045a7761907d8cd62937e1e60d
> > 
> > Let's see whether the magic keyword works :-)
> > 
> > [Patchwork-Status: Superseded]
> > 
> > https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/136794/
> > 
> > -- 
> > Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
> > 
> > The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
> > I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
> > represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
> > on behalf of Intel on this matter.
> 
> If it was supposed to update status on Patchwork, then it didn't work
> it's still in "New" state.

Jose, in your "parsemail: Set patch state from email metadata" patch you
said that it "allows project maintainers to change a patch status
directly from an email message".

Can you clarify who the "project maintainers" are who can use this email
interface?

What about this use case here: the original author wants to retract a
patch. Can he do that via email and/or the web interface?

I wasn't the original author and probably also no project maintainer, so
I guess that's why my email had no effect. Can we enable some kind of
error response for such cases?

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.