Re: Maintainer abuse

[Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>]

+ patchwork devs

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:15:35PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > Is it the year for a Google summer of code project or similar to turn
> > patchwork into a proper patch management tool (one that collects the
> > patches, provides a good maintainer interface, tells people automatically
> > that their patches are queued, deletes repeats, gives them status urls
> > they can give to managers or check, and also has the right bits
> > maintainer side to actually do stuff like send out "your patch set no
> > longer merges, please update" emails, and tell the maintainer if it
> > merges, the coding style important bits, etc and with buttons for "merge
> > me"

Patchwork definitely could use some work to help it scale better. Your
todo list also sounds interesting.

> If that works with command line tools which nicely integrate into
> e-mail, that might be something useful. If it involves browser clicky
> interfaces, then at least for me not so much.

Patchwork has an XML-based RPC interface and a command-line 'pwclient'
tool which uses it. I've had moderate success hooking this into mutt
myself.

> > It could then be integrated into git (if only so we can have a "git lost"
> > command to block annoying sources)

Not sure exactly what this is referring to, but patchwork has a
rudimentary post-receive hook already which can be used to map patch
diffs back to their likely patch source and update its status
accordingly. e.g.,

   git push myremote HEAD:next

could mark all myremote/next..HEAD patches as 'Awaiting Upstream', and

   git push myremote HEAD:for-linus

could mark myremote/for-linus..HEAD as 'Accepted'. This is a bit of a
crapshoot if you haven't resolved the 'duplicate patches' problem
though.

Regards,
Brian