From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4063C4C80815 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:34:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2010 16:34:00 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,172,1288594800"; d="scan'208";a="675561742" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.55]) ([10.255.13.55]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2010 16:34:00 -0800 Message-ID: <4CD896F7.2000603@intel.com> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:33:59 -0800 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Darren Hart References: <4CD6C358.8010907@linux.intel.com> <4CD782A9.8080201@windriver.com> <4CD81E51.1040304@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4CD81E51.1040304@linux.intel.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: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:34:01 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/08/2010 07:59 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > 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 ;-) > I think we also need a way to only send the initial email (and not the patches) since I work with the team to pull together multiple patches that are already on the list and re-send the request to the Yocto alias, I don't want to flood the list with duplicate match info. Also on a minor nit note: can you change the Branch to include contrib/ that way it can be a cut and paste for doing some of the local git operations. >> >> 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. > I am not sure we need to get into updating the patch or commit messages with Acked-by lines, the email archives should suffice. Sau! > 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, >