From: Konstantin Ryabitsev <mricon@kernel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: tools@kernel.org
Subject: Re: Sorting for applied and thanked reviews
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:03:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260317-enigmatic-acrid-corgi-e9bee9@lemur> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4547f513-9e28-4f5c-93d1-823e70b110fc@sirena.org.uk>
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 07:22:03PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> Currently it looks like in progress, applied and thanked reviews are all
> sorted together (by activity I think?), with reviews that are snoozed or
> waiting for new versions sorted after them. This seems a bit
> surprising, I'd expect at least the thanked reviews to be sorted even
> further down the list than those that are in progress but waiting for
> something.
We currently split all your tracked series into "action required" ones at the
top and "action not required" ones at the bottom, which is why all your
snoozed and waiting series are below everything else. Within these two
sections, the series are sorted by when they were last added to your tracking,
not by most recent activity. I used to sort them by latest activity but I
hated that they jump around -- if you have 5 series that you're working on
throughout the day, you benefit from visual memory if they all sit in one
spot.
I was expecting that "thanked" series would be prime candidates for archiving,
which is why they are kept in "action required". However, it's an easy change
to add them into "no action required".
We can instead differentiate this into:
active:
- new
- reviewing
action required:
- replied
- accepted
- thanked
inactive:
- snoozed
- waiting
Does that work, and how would you sort these?
--
KR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-17 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-17 19:22 Sorting for applied and thanked reviews Mark Brown
2026-03-17 21:03 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev [this message]
2026-03-17 22:21 ` Mark Brown
2026-03-18 14:17 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2026-03-18 19:45 ` Mark Brown
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-03-17 19:13 b4 review handing of rebasing issues for new versions Mark Brown
2026-03-17 19:52 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2026-03-17 19:58 ` B4 Bugbot
2026-03-18 13:49 ` B4 Bugbot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260317-enigmatic-acrid-corgi-e9bee9@lemur \
--to=mricon@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=tools@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox