This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Clean up patchwork.sourceware.org
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 17:21:28 -0800
- Subject: Re: Clean up patchwork.sourceware.org
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141127055452 dot GJ25419 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1411271704190 dot 2940 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20141129011052 dot GH24022 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:08:53PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> Cleaning up entries for other people's patches is a good idea as well -
>> especially as occasional contributors are less likely to ping regularly
>> and part of the point of patchwork is to stop patches getting lost. (Of
>> course reviewing old patches you find and feel competent to review helps
>> as well.)
> I agree for contributors who are not maintainers, but for those who
> are, they should be cleaning up after themselves.
>> If there are several versions of the same patch there, and it's not yet
>> in, all except the last should be marked Superseded. I think "Not
>> Applicable" is right for a patch to something else (e.g. Linux kernel) on
>> which libc-alpha was CC:ed.
> Right, that's what the workflow says.
What should we do for patches which got resubmitted with a new thread?
Should they be marked as Rejected?