This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Setting up patchwork on sourceware
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:42:14 +0000
- Subject: Re: Setting up patchwork on sourceware
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5319204D dot 7090802 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20140307062516 dot GC1722 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20140307145135 dot GD1722 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20140318094039 dot GA8415 at domone dot podge> <20140318102227 dot GS1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <53285733 dot 9000300 at redhat dot com> <20140318145426 dot GT1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <5328642E dot 9060001 at redhat dot com> <20140321162007 dot GN1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1403211630100 dot 4557 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20140321163921 dot GO1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:30:50PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > What's the right state for "the patch was only ever an RFC or proof of
> > concept rather than proposed for inclusion as-is"?
>
> There is an 'RFC' status available in the default list which we can
> use for such patches, but marking the patch as RFC by the submitter
> would mean that reviewers may never see them in the default view,
> which shows only unresolved patches, i.e. those in NEW state.
My point is basically that such patches *shouldn't* be shown by default,
as they aren't pending review.
> I'll see if there's a way to change the default view so that it shows
> patches in states other than just NEW. If that is not possible
> immediately, then we could continue using the RFC and/or WIP tag on
> the email subject to indicate such patches.
One thing that's visible in the present tracker data is that the subjects
of many patches don't really reflect the patch content. I think we'll
need conventions that if you post a patch in reply to something then you
change the Subject of your email to reflect the patch itself rather than
the thread it was in reply to.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com