From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454FD4C80815 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:59:15 -0600 (CST) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2010 07:59:14 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,314,1286175600"; d="scan'208";a="345958999" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.208]) ([10.255.12.208]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2010 07:59:13 -0800 Message-ID: <4CD81E51.1040304@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 07:59:13 -0800 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Ashfield References: <4CD6C358.8010907@linux.intel.com> <4CD782A9.8080201@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <4CD782A9.8080201@windriver.com> Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] git-pull: new pull request generation and sending scripts X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:59:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/07/2010 08:55 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 10-11-07 10:18 AM, Darren Hart wrote: >> On 11/06/2010 11:28 AM, Darren Hart wrote: >>> The following patches replace the existing create-pull-request script >>> and create >>> a new send-pull-request. See 2/3 for details on the motivation and >>> functionality >>> of the new create-pull-request script. >> >> Thinking about this, I realized that the script would be usefull for >> just sending patches as well (for developers without a contrib branch). >> Perhaps the scripts should not contain "pull" in their name and the >> remote git branch as well as the hosting site should be both optional >> and configurable. These are relatively trivial changes which we could >> address in a subsequent series if people agree that this initial set is >> the right approach for our project. > > I saw these in action at the LPC, and I like the two > phase approach here. Since it gives a chance to edit/update > review before sending, and like 'git mailinfo' it creates > the parts you need and doesn't actually do anything > without a second command :) > > Having the patches via email is key for me, so I'm glad > to see that in place. Do we assume that discretion will > be used and we don't need a throttle/limit on the patches ? > But then again, thinking about it, 200+ patch dumps > to go lkml without the world ending (and it shouldn't > really be common here) so this probably isn't an issue. I thought a bit about ensuring proper ordering (I've made scripts wait 5 seconds between patches before). As for abuse... well, I think it is unlikely - if someone wants to abuse the list, there are innumerable ways to go about it, this being one of the least efficient ;-) > > So definitely acked-by me. > Excellent - and this brings up a point I wanted to discuss. One of the stated reasons for doing this was to facilitate peer review. Now that I have Bruce's Acked-by:, I could reword the commit messages to include them, or Richard could add them when he does the pull, but I do think they should be present in the final commits to poky proper. Richard - how would you like to see that done? My suggestion would be that if you accept these as they are, that you append Bruce's Acked-by and your Signed-off-by. If I end up having to take another pass and send a V2 pull request, I could confirm Bruce still agrees (in a side channel) and add his Acked-by. Thanks, -- Darren Hart Embedded Linux Kernel