From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Schocher Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:12:54 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] u-boot gerrit server In-Reply-To: <20131119151057.GG420@bill-the-cat> References: <20131115200820.GK420@bill-the-cat> <20131115213415.GM420@bill-the-cat> <20131115232142.7D6D7380C6E@gemini.denx.de> <20131117165120.8AFA2380460@gemini.denx.de> <20131117194112.GZ420@bill-the-cat> <20131118160051.GC420@bill-the-cat> <528AE93D.2080805@denx.de> <20131119151057.GG420@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <528BAA26.5090701@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Tom, Am 19.11.2013 16:10, schrieb Tom Rini: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 05:29:49AM +0100, Heiko Schocher wrote: >> Hello Tom, >> >> Am 18.11.2013 17:00, schrieb Tom Rini: >>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:07:59AM +1100, Graeme Russ wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> You do all realise that we are going about this, to use some British >>>> vernacular, arse-about-tit >>>> >>>> Everyone agrees that the current U-Boot review workflow 'has issues' (and >>>> has had issues for quite some time). The first attempt at overcoming these >>>> issues was Patchwork. I personally think that that ended up being far less >>>> successful than we hoped >>> >>> Maybe it's time to swing around back and talk about what's wrong with >>> our current tools then. >> >> Thanks! >> >>> What I don't like about patchwork: >>> - Some patches just don't make it in. >>> - Sometimes discussions can be a bit hard to follow there, but that's >>> what real mail list archives are for. >> >> Yep. >> >> What I miss in patchwork: >> >> - It would be great, if patchwork could detect newer version from patches >> and mark the old patches superseeded ... but maybe this is not trivial >> for all patches... and have somewhere in the new patch website a link >> to the superseeded patch, so I can easy find the old patch and can look >> in it. > > This isn't as easy as it sounds I think. And honestly, it's not hard to > handle manually, if you get in the habit. And... Yes, but we just collect things we want/miss/dont like ... so it is a point I want, not a must, as I can handle this manually. >> - If a custodian change the state of a patch, send at least a EMail >> to the owner of the patch with the info of the state changes. > > Wishlisting, I'd like to see the reverse, known project custodian saying > "Applied to" or "NAK" causing Accepted (or Awaiting Upstream, this is a > little complex..) or Rejected to happen automatically. This could save > on sending out the applied messages, but that's what bundles give me. > Open it up in mutt, reply, find/paste/save-for-later, repeat. > >> - Maybe a cmdline interface to change the state of a patch, so I do not >> need to open a webbrowser (not necessary, would just nice ;-) > > As Wolfgang pointed out, there is a cli suite (doesn't like SOCKS, iirc, > tho). So it's scriptable to different levels. With Wolfgang's setup, > you could just for loop over the old series and it goes automagically. Yes, I look into the cmdline interface... thanks! bye, Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany