Re: Automating the maintenance of the ChangeLog file

[Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>]

On 29/11/18 9:21 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:03 AM Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> > If we cannot make patchwork happy, we can rest assured that we cannot
> > make any PR based tools happy.
>
> Is that right, though?  In a PR-based workflow, the primary artifact
> is a VCS branch and its meta-revision history (i.e. first we had this
> series of commits, then they got rebased and now we have this other
> one, etc) and the review discussion (which may still be email-based,
> and indeed I hope it will be) is hanging off of that.  It seems to me
> that that would inherently make it easier for a patch tracker to
> monitor the status of all proposed changes, since it can directly
> monitor events in the VCS rather than trying to reconstruct them from
> emails that may be ambiguous.

I should clarify that I'm not promoting patchwork as the end result of 
our efforts.  The only point I'm making is that we don't necessarily 
need to choose a PR-based workflow now to make our patches compatible 
with them; patchwork can do that for us.

Choice of patch review tools is going to take another Cauldron at least, 
if not two.  Patchwork exists today because one day I hosted it on my 
personal host some years ago and a bunch of us liked it at the time. 
The result was that not a lot of people (including me) used it and it 
bit rotted.  We need to make sure that that doesn't happen again.

Siddhesh