This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Patchwork patch tracking system
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:49:08 -0700
- Subject: Re: Patchwork patch tracking system
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140402100842 dot GA956 at blade dot nx> <533F3713 dot 40700 at earthlink dot net> <20140417135040 dot GA891 at blade dot nx> <20140422130652 dot GG5790 at adacore dot com> <8738gw6p4b dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <87tx8jnq7j dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <537CDFCE dot 7000407 at redhat dot com>
> I'm not certain that would work for us, unless we change some process.
> I am under the impression that that matches commits by git hash.
> The fact that the ChangeLog is usually not a part of the patch
> and then is added before push changes the hash. Also,
> given we only allow fast-forward, it's very frequent that patches
> need to be rebased when pushed, which changes hash as well.
I think we should be open to the idea of changing our process to
some degree. To me, keeping track of patch series, in terms of
grouping as well as iterations of the patch series, would be
a great feature worth some changes in our procedures. To go
even further, I am not necessarily attached to making email-based
interaction the primary way of discussing an email. I know many
people are, and I am not advocating for one way or the other, but
just trying to show that this isn't an obvious requirement to me.