This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Setting up patchwork on sourceware
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: 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 13:53:57 -0400
- Subject: Re: Setting up patchwork on sourceware
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <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> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1403211640020 dot 4557 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20140321165307 dot GQ1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/21/2014 12:53 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:42:14PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Ahh OK, in that case, they can be marked as RFC to 'hide' them from
> the default view.
Exactly, that's what I'd like also. That way I can review RFC's in
bulk.
>>> 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.
>
> Ack, I have added this point to the document.
Yes, some of the subject lines are truly terrible.
We should outright mark them as rejected if you have a bad subject line :-)
Cheers,
Carlos.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLHy1AAoJECXvCkNsKkr/q78IAL4064BJ8z8gq7f8X06G2oZZ
aQ9hCvvruF5jajIH1CzawQ1MlBaCYcnBfSNEAT/sGhQYUeY4+UK3gpLIynJBYUXc
RyjNiqEVYDQDUCUD6jhnW430CpL8zReqsmvDpLz2uacEFrV/1QJk2GCRGaDL7uHt
AWb6MTfFZcmvu36gWVi9GqHVTUA/MPm04UzDT2NcwzUlu1fCacQ63KvSgdFDbhEX
zqT78O/3OOJeXCoS3O7Ze5+omUVNzb424OoTX9Rp5x6+gO3GDrLxNNeeOIhn10sE
zSjs7AjiyJKHYO9gFoY8T3R0BBi79hR30/QVSgTOPyGbrdA8S7BCJoXtArCm3yM=
=VViN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----