Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF?

Simon Marchi
Fri Oct 28 16:54:50 GMT 2022

On 2022-10-28 12 h 51, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 10/28/22 9:16 AM, Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote:
>> On 2022-10-27 06 h 47, Luis Machado via Gdb wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Having suggested a few topics for the GDB BoF (I noticed they were discussed, to some extent), are there
>>> any concrete plans from the GDB global maintainers (leadership? I don't know how to call it) to address
>>> some of those concerns?
>>> Simon was kind enough to cleanup the patchworks instance, though that is not yet fully integrated into
>>> something we can easily use to do tests/CI. I see the number of unreviewed patches is growing again.
>>> For example, it is not easy to pick a patch to review. You need to locate the entry in your inbox so you
>>> can reply to it.
>> I do not know of a way to trigger CI tests from Patchwork, that would
>> perhaps be a question for Mark (added in CC).
>> On a personal note, coming back from the Cauldron, I set myself a goal
>> to do more reviews as part of my daily work.  I'm trying to do around 1
>> hour a day of upstream reviews, and to choose what to review, I use
>> patchwork, sorting patches by oldest date.  I check if the patch I'm
>> looking at has already been reviewed, merged, or superseded by a new
>> version, and if so I update its status.  Rinse and repeat until I find a
>> patch that needs reviewing.  Otherwise, just looking at my inbox's
>> gdb-patches folder with thousands of unread messages, I don't know what
>> to start with.  Just by myself, I certainly won't get through the whole
>> list of patches pending review, but I think it is a somewhat fair
>> algorithm.  So in that regard, patchwork is useful for me.
> Interesting.  Does the date factor in pings?  That is, if you ping a series
> does it move earlier in the list or does it keep its original date?
> Actually, I guess not all pings work.  I have a series I posted back on
> July 7th and have pinged a few times since that doesn't show up in patchworks.
> (And I only confirmed that by finding some other closed patch with my username
> so I could do a query by username.)  Maybe because the pings were all replies
> that had 'Re:' prefixes in the subject?  If we need to format pings in a
> certain way, that would be good to know.  Alternatively, if old patch series
> just need to be re-posted that would also be good to know.
> The web UI for patchworks also seems a bit buggy.  Not sure who to provide
> feedback to?  Trying to do a text search on a series name (e.g. putting a
> keyword in the series name field) just ignores the text field and returns all
> patches.  Also, if you click on a different field like Submitter and then try
> to go to another page, it resets the sort order on the second page to sort by
> Date.  If you then change the sorting key on the second page, it reverts back
> to the first page with the new key.  I haven't tried manually constructing the
> parameters in the URL to get to the second page with a new key.

Indeed, patches that were submitted previously don't appear.


More information about the Gdb mailing list