Re: [RFC] Use of the Nacked-by tag by CI scripts

[Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.m.mail@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1757 bytes --]

On Monday, December 9, 2019, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 09/12/19 10:28, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
> >     If there is a consensus about using this tag, the following patch
> >     can be added to Peter's management scripts:
> >     https://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/misc-scripts.git/
> >     <https://git.linaro.org/people/pmaydell/misc-scripts.git/>
> >
> > I always assumed that pull requests by sub-maintainers should contain
> > "ready for merging" code (justified, reviewed, tested, ...). Why would
> > ever a sub-maintainer send something that doesn't comply to these
> > conditions?
>
> Because things can and do go wrong, perhaps someone was on vacation
> while the original patch was posted, perhaps somebody is giving a
> negative review outside his maintenance area, perhaps there would be
> conflicts with a tree-wide series being discussed elsewhere...  It's
> rare and I don't think it would be misused, but I think it's a good idea
> to have a machine-readable way to block patches.
>
>
I'm afraid this would be opening a Pandora's box. For such rare cases, a
message from a person: "Please hold on this patch until I am back from
vacation.", "Please wait until I merge my series acting on the same files",
or similar, would perfectly do the job, as it did in the past.

We are fixing something that is not broken.


> However, I'm not sure why the commits would contain a tag.  Instead, we
> could use the patchew REST API
> (https://patchew.org/api/v1/projects/1/series/MESSAGE-ID/) and search
> for nacked-by tags in there.
>
> Paolo
>
> > I think, in general, this tag would do more harm than good, allowing
> > frivolous blocking of patches, and fixing a process that already works,
> > without any need.
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2594 bytes --]