From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:00:51 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] u-boot gerrit server In-Reply-To: References: <20131114211759.GE420@bill-the-cat> <20131115200820.GK420@bill-the-cat> <20131115213415.GM420@bill-the-cat> <20131115232142.7D6D7380C6E@gemini.denx.de> <20131117165120.8AFA2380460@gemini.denx.de> <20131117194112.GZ420@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <20131118160051.GC420@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:07:59AM +1100, Graeme Russ wrote: > Hi All, > > You do all realise that we are going about this, to use some British > vernacular, arse-about-tit > > Everyone agrees that the current U-Boot review workflow 'has issues' (and > has had issues for quite some time). The first attempt at overcoming these > issues was Patchwork. I personally think that that ended up being far less > successful than we hoped Maybe it's time to swing around back and talk about what's wrong with our current tools then. What I don't like about patchwork: - Some patches just don't make it in. - Sometimes discussions can be a bit hard to follow there, but that's what real mail list archives are for. That's it. The queue can get unwieldy if you don't check the unassigned patches daily, but I don't see how another tool is going to fix the underlying problem of people not using the tool frequently. What I like about patchwork: - Bundles. - Everything is mailbox format / git am'able. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: