This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Automating the maintenance of the ChangeLog file
* Zack Weinberg:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:03 AM Siddhesh Poyarekar <firstname.lastname@example.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 think technically it's easier because the PR tool is the single source
of truth, whereas Patchwork lives just on the side.
On the other hand, if we cannot get people to use Patchwork, I don't
think they will be too happy with using the PR tool (which would be
mandatory because it's the single source of truth).