Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Add goals of patch review and tips

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 4:23 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> > Hi all,

> > > + also add Tested: link-to-github-actions-run below --- in patch would
> > help
> > > (it's than obvious that maintainer does not have to bother with doing it
> > or
> > > not hope that it fails on CentOS 7 old compiler or very new Fedora
> > compiler).

> > > Maybe also encourage people to create account in the patchwork and
> > maintain
> > > status their patches would help (set "Superseded" if they sent new patch
> > version,


> I'm not sure if this brings advantages more than disadvantages
> My concern is that probably caused the wrong operation if more
> green hands can update the patch status in the patchwork. That
> easily let us confused about where the patch has gone:).

> Unless we have a way to grant limited permissions to account.

Ordinary users (non-admins) have permissions to their patches (patches which
they sent). But any status can be set.  OK, let's not ask for it.


> > other statuses like "Accepted" or "Changes requested" are also sometimes
> > > forgotten by the maintainer who post comments or merge the patch).
> > Example why helping to maintain the patches by submitter would help:
> > mknod01: Rewrite the test using new LTP API [1] followed by [v2,1/1]
> > mknod01:
> > Rewrite the test using new LTP API [2].

> > Li reviewed v2, but later Cyril pushed v1 (manually updating patch) without
> > update patchwork. (Li review was ignored, I tried to apply v2 to merge it
> > because status was not updated.)



> I'd make a clarification for that mknod01 patch review,
> the reason why Cyril merge V1 manually is that V2
> involves new change (I neglected) in mknod02, which
> should be separated in another patch.

> Cyril did the right thing there. But he didn't explain that.

Thanks for detailed info. Yes, I didn't think Cyril anything wrong, I wanted to
document that more patch versions + not updating them can lead to confusion.

Kind regards,
Petr

> > Petr

> > [1]
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20230222034501.11800-1-akumar@suse.de/
> > [2]
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20230228154203.2783-1-akumar@suse.de/

> > > Both of these are small helps, but they still help LTP maintainers to
> > have more
> > > time for the review or for writing own patches.

> > > But I can post a follow-up patch with these after your patch is merged
> > if you
> > > don't want to formulate them.

> > > Kind regards,
> > > Petr

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp