From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [128.178.224.226] (helo=smtp3.epfl.ch) by linuxtogo.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LQJPl-00086l-6u for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:37:29 +0100 Received: (qmail 10506 invoked by uid 107); 23 Jan 2009 10:30:08 -0000 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV Received: from lsa1pc7.epfl.ch (128.178.145.53) (authenticated) by smtp3.epfl.ch (AngelmatoPhylax SMTP proxy); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:30:08 +0100 Message-ID: <49799C30.90508@epfl.ch> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:30:08 +0100 From: Valentin Longchamp User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org" References: <200901230131.09511.mickey@vanille-media.de> <87wscmn8ne.fsf@neumann.lab.ossystems.com.br> In-Reply-To: <87wscmn8ne.fsf@neumann.lab.ossystems.com.br> Subject: Re: Bugtracker Status X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:37:29 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Otavio Salvador wrote: > > I propose to change the workflow a bit (and reuse few points you've proposed): > > 1. stop using bugtracker to handle patches > 2. use mailing list to handle patches (comments bellow) > 3. drop autobuilder bug reporting (comments bellow) > > Besides, I have no objection about your points 2.2 and 2.3 but I'm too > new in the OE environment to comment about them so let me comment > about my points: > > 1 and 2: > > We're trying to get more people to review the changes to be done in > OE dev tree and bugzilla UI is horrible and difficult to use (at > least for me). Most people ends up redoing someone else patch since > we don't watch carefully the bugtrack. > > I propose we move to mailing list reviewing process mostly like Linux > kernel does. We can use PatchWork (http://ozlabs.org/~jk/projects/patchwork/) > tool to make our life easier. I see some pros for that: > > . people will get more review into the patches > . people will be aware of ongoing work and what is being prepared to > be merged > . less forgotten patches > . less duplicated work > > I also see a single con for that: > > . more mailing list traffic > Even if I am not very much involved in the OE development, I completely agree with Otavio. The few patches that I have proposed are often stuck on the bugzilla. Maybe it would be better with a mailing-list. Furthermore, now that we use git, we have plenty of tools to send patches to a mailing-list (format-patch, send-email and am). I would definitely support a patch review style like on the linux kernel mailing-lists even if this implies a high-traffic list (with simple filter rules in your mail client, it's easy to handle). However, I don't think it would be a good idea to have two lists. My 2 c. Val -- Valentin Longchamp, PhD Student, EPFL-STI-LSRO1 valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch, Phone: +41216937827 http://people.epfl.ch/valentin.longchamp MEA3485, Station 9, CH-1015 Lausanne