From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f54.google.com (mail-it0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74FD719DE for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:21:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f54.google.com with SMTP id h10so21224353ith.1 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:21:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=50y6Q/LSfmuDcz1eAxIn4Cz7d89oBUEPf0X0+C3trXg=; b=IjyEeueq3mJcbIoGzKxhMqQlvIYKTc2JukPZOXWI6PTMdG5wjM7EVafIVsNoQk39+P zeq54m/uIJ68vnbrFNBtEG4w3VvShM9mPlJYpoiuKNLr52QTMnXFzDgpYkrKKkt3mmJe Vx2KtFaBV+VownSSlT83DsIe7ZOoaVBuWs9VNSm6oXn6PMCMFkiA3S2JWX25uar5OSdl oU7Kk01/5dj8W1SnXLdPuml4UgjCmKiYCws02FD+I+Smu6PjP9N5OtyDnwLkemxR/EeO MbrWlsgtKmG/M6a04CxcpsY8seALBR3wXphSWhgQpyLyDwZCj80P5H+Eweg/TrduGyni +/3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=50y6Q/LSfmuDcz1eAxIn4Cz7d89oBUEPf0X0+C3trXg=; b=MJ4TKYgluOMUQu4cd6d3Ize/3G6pjZF9Ch72XkSAKERojdhhh3kw/VAKZC4ihXOZOI NNMtZKUZrtn04JNbJFcTSj6Ij+qV8ENmop4V2Xi2AMjALU4EmUHJgDhN70MorSb5X377 VzgVtIS3uvYaKicmARDFtN0buoXiulLY6UtP4QjDTqOaZ2w4Wv2Nh27NZNnV4bJ9tjay Dlnfn4bN6IM30lukYmNr2XRsmd1AwqAwJEIq2DIProczyVYCZZknAMvUknH+rzgzKSXE 6fN/624voWFjOnswBTEqeE+Du7FjDmnm1H/4T3S+idxVoUpB7Gfa24jiSWxb9pTRthKF a0Dg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m+c/aXoajfNq9htgZE+m6l+FZBTwETATFgDuwFkdHjMo0sZdd4WgKC2E18f15wKQjy X-Received: by 10.36.219.3 with SMTP id c3mr2698983itg.52.1487946076038; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:21:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (ip-64-134-128-59.public.wayport.net. [64.134.128.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h69sm746848ith.16.2017.02.24.06.21.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:21:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1487946072.10512.9.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Jose Lamego Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:21:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <26abf96d-d224-0795-4870-cdd496f541de@linux.intel.com> References: <1487785536-13777-1-git-send-email-derek@asterius.io> <20170222204736.GG3283@jama> <26abf96d-d224-0795-4870-cdd496f541de@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core , "Lamego, Jose A" , openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, Leonardo Sandoval Subject: Re: [OE-core] Patchwork not picking changes from the ML X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:21:16 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 15:56 -0600, Jose Lamego wrote: > > On 02/22/2017 02:55 PM, Michael Halstead wrote: > > I've seen several issues with hooks. I was working on them yesterday and > > will continue today. > > > > These are currently managed by hand but we are moving them into > > configuration management which should help keep them working consistently. > > Michael: one syntax error in patchwork code was pulled into production > yesterday. This is the cause for missing patches. The error is fixed in > the Yocto repo now, please perform a server code update ASAP. > > Martin: I will look at the UI issue you are describing and file a bug if > needed. Would it perhaps make sense to reply to the original author with an email confirming that his patch is now in Patchwork? It should include a link to the patch series, too. This could have several advantages: * submitters not aware of Patchwork or whether their target currently uses it learn about it and then can follow the progress of their patch * everyone gets a confirmation that the submission made it through the various mail servers and Patchwork itself It still relies on the original submitter to watch out for breakages in the processes, but I guess that can't be avoided with an asynchronous, mail-based process. -- 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f52.google.com (mail-it0-f52.google.com [209.85.214.52]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2969D719DE for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:21:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f52.google.com with SMTP id y135so23807164itc.1 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:21:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=50y6Q/LSfmuDcz1eAxIn4Cz7d89oBUEPf0X0+C3trXg=; b=IjyEeueq3mJcbIoGzKxhMqQlvIYKTc2JukPZOXWI6PTMdG5wjM7EVafIVsNoQk39+P zeq54m/uIJ68vnbrFNBtEG4w3VvShM9mPlJYpoiuKNLr52QTMnXFzDgpYkrKKkt3mmJe Vx2KtFaBV+VownSSlT83DsIe7ZOoaVBuWs9VNSm6oXn6PMCMFkiA3S2JWX25uar5OSdl oU7Kk01/5dj8W1SnXLdPuml4UgjCmKiYCws02FD+I+Smu6PjP9N5OtyDnwLkemxR/EeO MbrWlsgtKmG/M6a04CxcpsY8seALBR3wXphSWhgQpyLyDwZCj80P5H+Eweg/TrduGyni +/3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=50y6Q/LSfmuDcz1eAxIn4Cz7d89oBUEPf0X0+C3trXg=; b=HAvEy3768PUNbOEM64Hmglynv7+Pv8qOgXZwIwtrHkRCgbbGEsbRpdh2yCdb/tAgra ifW5E/xZ88WK7yygrTGK1V99ITjRYLJQOd+PYyIA8gZzDbmoL2m2zZas85LrOMutKmAb xpS5kR0dIbvsI3smaeNOJvLVFOnnEhy3nFc6NVFePodrFOGTS+dMloA75oM7b9mc9GSG G0nkMDuWypkfwppgSndJmzlXQ5jkzUAvj+scYUflVkH0Q8Hs1ZDfHc6lquoQyzFcIclB kA6QsdLWahy/v3Bmk6vvs2ssAxBx0VKQ9rpIHHfrxpwpoi9KV9Qjp5f+b7WrSmDEC5vv FBaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lV0r/QNfwkBn4szRT55bN6shDR+NUhDzxhCZVmPsVLeUG/LyHuoucYua5k3kIt44wK X-Received: by 10.36.219.3 with SMTP id c3mr2698983itg.52.1487946076038; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:21:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (ip-64-134-128-59.public.wayport.net. [64.134.128.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h69sm746848ith.16.2017.02.24.06.21.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:21:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1487946072.10512.9.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Jose Lamego Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:21:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <26abf96d-d224-0795-4870-cdd496f541de@linux.intel.com> References: <1487785536-13777-1-git-send-email-derek@asterius.io> <20170222204736.GG3283@jama> <26abf96d-d224-0795-4870-cdd496f541de@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Derek Straka , openembedded-core , "Lamego, Jose A" , openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, Leonardo Sandoval Subject: Re: Patchwork not picking changes from the ML X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:21:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 15:56 -0600, Jose Lamego wrote: > > On 02/22/2017 02:55 PM, Michael Halstead wrote: > > I've seen several issues with hooks. I was working on them yesterday and > > will continue today. > > > > These are currently managed by hand but we are moving them into > > configuration management which should help keep them working consistently. > > Michael: one syntax error in patchwork code was pulled into production > yesterday. This is the cause for missing patches. The error is fixed in > the Yocto repo now, please perform a server code update ASAP. > > Martin: I will look at the UI issue you are describing and file a bug if > needed. Would it perhaps make sense to reply to the original author with an email confirming that his patch is now in Patchwork? It should include a link to the patch series, too. This could have several advantages: * submitters not aware of Patchwork or whether their target currently uses it learn about it and then can follow the progress of their patch * everyone gets a confirmation that the submission made it through the various mail servers and Patchwork itself It still relies on the original submitter to watch out for breakages in the processes, but I guess that can't be avoided with an asynchronous, mail-based process. -- 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.