Re: FYI: Status of gdb usage of gerrit

[Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>]

On 23/11/19 8:26 am, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> The summary is that gdb will no longer use gerrit because of:
> 
> * lack of cover letters
> * lack of mail threading for patch series

Lack of cover letters is a problem but not insurmountable IMO.  I
understand that it is inconvenient to discuss state of a full patch
series on, say, the first patch of the series but it's not an
insurmountable problem.

I didn't understand the point of not being able to club a sequence of
patches as a patchset; I believe gerrit already identifies patchsets and
they show up in the top right pane as such.  Maybe it refers to the
inability to do so in the email notifications?

Likewise for mail threading; I see responses (even v2, v3) to patch
emails from gerrit as threads in my email client.

> * accurate patch tracking
> * UI for side-by-side review and commenting
> * patch version tracking with patch IDs (changeset IDs)
> * detailed comment tracking to ensure that all comments are
>   reviewed for all versions
> * ability to use git to fetch a patch and test it.
> 
> You can work around the lack of a cover letter by using
> an empty commit with a message.

That's a good workaround, perhaps even a decent way to mark the
beginning of a patch series in git history.

> You can work around the lack of mail threading for patch
> series by using a subject prefix that's numbered like
> a series e.g. "nodelete 1/12: Introduce 
> DL_LOOKUP_FOR_RELOCATE flag for _dl_lookup_symbol_x"
> Then you can go through your mail looking for nodelete
> 1-12.

Ahh, so by threading y'all mean sequencing of patches in a series and
thus, the series goes in a single mail thread tree?

Siddhesh