From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LQJzP-0000VK-NM for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:14:19 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LQJsO-0004Ci-Nl for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:07:04 +0000 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:07:04 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:07:04 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:06:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <200901230131.09511.mickey@vanille-media.de> <87wscmn8ne.fsf@neumann.lab.ossystems.com.br> <49799C30.90508@epfl.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090114 Shredder/3.0b2pre In-Reply-To: <49799C30.90508@epfl.ch> Sender: news Subject: Mailinglists, was: 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 11:14:20 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 23-01-09 11:30, Valentin Longchamp wrote: > 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. I'd go even further by saying we should reorganize the mailinglists into this: * oe mailinglist for humans * combined commit + autobuild log list for non-humans That should reduce confusion which list to use (oe-user, oe-devel, etc) for sending mails and more people get to see patches flying by. Even if you don't review them having more code snippets on the list is usefull for newcomers. regards, Koen