This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: patchwork.sourceware.org is live!
- From: Samuel Bronson <naesten at gmail dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 21:56:55 -0400
- Subject: Re: patchwork.sourceware.org is live!
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140523211338 dot GK12497 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <5382E7F2 dot 4020506 at suse dot com> <CAAHN_R0zVp8B7zXfARzvKvETx9kLZp1FYPN9pUWDwV4cNCjCvA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5382EF22 dot 4060705 at suse dot com> <CAAHN_R0GhZvqUDEN7e3DS2Y7b7W752oJabgET-nu6Oq8LJaeTA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5382F50E dot 7040702 at suse dot com> <20140526102052 dot GA18682 at domone>
OndÅej BÃlka <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:02:22AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> On 05/26/2014 09:52 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> > That's a good idea. I have modified the current document and also
>> > added the Committed status to the document. Once we have consensus on
>> > adding the new 'Committed' status, I'll also add it to patchwork.
>> > Siddhesh
>> >  https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Patch%20Review%20Workflow
Are there any objections to the new state?
> That should be set automatically. I use a following script to detect
> commited patches.
If there are no objections, I guess the script will need to be changed
to put patches in the "Committed" state instead of the "Accepted" state?
However, really I'd prefer if it could give some indication as to
*which* commit(s) the patch was committed as, and it doesn't look like
this is viable with the current approach, since you seem to just test if
each patch can be applied backwards to HEAD.
Oh, but now I notice that that *particular* script is glibc-only anyway,
so maybe I don't really care that much ...
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!