This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Actually setting up patchwork on sourceware

On 03-04-2014 17:58, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On 04/02/2014 01:54 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> Hi,
>> In an attempt to make progress on the subject of choosing a tool to
>> track patches in glibc, I had created a patchwork instance on my
>> server[1] for people to try their hand at it and to see what kind of
>> changes we need to the tool to suit our requirements.  A few of us
>> signed up and tried their hand at using patchwork and so far there
>> haven't been any complaints.
>> Following Carlos' suggestion, I created a wiki document to define a
>> workflow around patchwork[2], which got some feedback and subsequent
>> editing.
>> Since there haven't been any further questions or comments on either
>> the choice of tool or the workflow, I propose that we create the final
>> instance on sourceware and start using it.  Does anyone have any
>> objections to it?
>> I volunteer to help with setup and migration, but I don't have access
>> to the sourceware server beyond the glibc git repo, so I'd appreciate
>> help on that end.  The setup and migration sequence:
>> - Set up the patchwork application and database on sourceware and
>>   configure it to use SSL by default.
>> - Migrate earlier patches and state from
>> - Subscribe a user for patchwork to libc-alpha
>> - Have all maintainers sign up
> I strongly suggest we move ahead with this! :-)
> - From my perspective it has been a smashing success. I use Patchwork
> daily to look for the oldest patches that need review. I keep Patchwork
> updated based on my reviews, and I think it will only help the community.
> With my Red Hat on I look for Red Hat patches to review.
> With my FSF hat on I review the oldest patches in the tracker that need review.
> Is this going to help us move towards a working bugzilla procedure? Yes
> it will. If we want the bugzilla procedure to work smoothly we first need
> patch review and commits to work smoothly otherwise we won't get the
> bugs fixed (which is really what counts).
> There have been suggestions that glibc's and binutils' Patchwork instances
> could be hosted at Oz Labs, but my preference is to keep all of the glibc
> services under to make it easier to keep the services in
> sync (registration, ml, bugzilla, git, patchwork, wiki), working together,
> and supported by one team. The only service we presently redirect is
> web and that goes to the FSF glibc website and was done on purpose because
> we are a GNU project.
Great work Siddhesh, looking forward for patchwork on

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]