From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CE81F71B for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 08:59:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752180AbcHAI7k (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:59:40 -0400 Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197]:34258 "EHLO relay5-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750971AbcHAI7i (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:59:38 -0400 Received: from mfilter48-d.gandi.net (mfilter48-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.179]) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA3B41C080; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 10:59:35 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter48-d.gandi.net Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.197]) by mfilter48-d.gandi.net (mfilter48-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sjn1lS4aYD_r; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 10:59:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 50.39.163.18 Received: from x (50-39-163-18.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.163.18]) (Authenticated sender: josh@joshtriplett.org) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C9F241C0BE; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 10:59:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:59:29 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Eric Wong Cc: Christian Couder , Richard Ipsum , git@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dborowitz@google.com, Omar Jarjur , Harry Lawrence Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-series: track changes to a patch series over time Message-ID: <20160801085928.lw3ltdksyrjujutu@x> References: <20160729064055.GB25331@x> <20160729101011.GA3469@salo> <20160801075554.GA22222@starla> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160801075554.GA22222@starla> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-07-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 07:55:54AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > Christian Couder wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Richard Ipsum > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:40:55PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > [snip] > > >> > > >> I'd welcome any feedback, whether on the interface and workflow, the > > >> internals and collaboration, ideas on presenting diffs of patch series, > > >> or anything else. > > > > I'm particularly interested in trying to establish a standard for > > > storing review data in git. I've got a prototype for doing that[3], > > > and an example tool that uses it[4]. The tool is still incomplete/buggy though. > > > > There is also git-appraise (https://github.com/google/git-appraise) > > written in Go to store code review data in Git. > > It looks like it stores its data in git notes and can be integrated > > with Rust (https://github.com/Nemo157/git-appraise-rs). > > I'm not convinced another format/standard is needed besides the > email workflow we already use for git and kernel development. Not all projects use a patches-by-email workflow, or want to. To the extent that tools and projects use some other workflow, standardizing the format they use to store patch reviews (including per-line annotations, approvals, test results, etc) seems preferable to having each tool use its own custom format. > I also see the reliance on an after-the-fact search engine > (which can be tuned/replaced) as philosophically inline with > what git does, too, such as not having rename tracking and > doing delayed deltafication. Storing review data in git doesn't mean it needs to end up in the history of the project itself; it can use after-the-fact annotations on a commit. > Email also has the advantage of having existing tooling, and > being (at least for now) federated without a single point of > failure. Storing review data in git makes it easy to push and pull it, which can provide the basis for a federated system. - Josh Triplett