This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Patchwork for glibc?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: <ramrad01 at arm dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:18:28 +0000
- Subject: Re: Patchwork for glibc?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52FE35BC dot 3000908 at redhat dot com> <52FE4FF4 dot 6090004 at redhat dot com> <CAJA7tRaK6_maeKQph2zCzKzc0JC7gpKzQLF3TOAhawrwJp7rsw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> I'm quite tired as well of stale patches in mailboxes and the
> associated pain we have in all the communities. I've got a few ideas
> based on looking at some available tools like phabricator and
> reviewboard but I'm not in a position to have a meaningful discussion.
What I want from any system supporting patch review is:
* No need to use a special tool to submit a patch; patches can be sent
with normal mail clients and so be in greppable form in one's sent mail
folders. (This does not say whether there could be some
patch-tracking-submission email address that's CC:ed as well as the list,
or whether patches could be sent to such an address that then sends them
on to the list.)
* Patches, whether or not anyone uses some special tool to submit them,
arrive in mailboxes in normal plain-text emails to the mailing list, so
can be found through grep of mail folders from the list and are archived
in all archives of the list.
* Patches can be reviewed in normal plain-text emails to the mailing list
without any special tool being needed. If someone uses some other tool to
review a patch, this generates such an email, on the list, in the right
thread, with meaningful context based on the reviewer's choice of which
parts of the patch should be quoted in the review (not just quoting too
little context, not just giving line numbers, not quoting the whole thing
without trimming irrelevant pieces), so reviews can also be found through
grep of mail folders to the list and are also archived in all archives of
the list.
I believe patchwork achieves this by tracking whatever patches have gone
to the list, regardless of what tools may have been used to send them. It
does need someone keeping an eye on the data and removing patches that
have been committed, or reviewed and need revising.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com