Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF?

Tom Tromey
Fri Jan 27 23:50:33 GMT 2023

>>>>> "Lancelot" == Lancelot SIX <> writes:

Lancelot> I usually try to run a script doing this automatically.  However, it can
Lancelot> only detect when a checked-in patch exactly matches what have been sent
Lancelot> to the ML.  So the situations where we have "OK to merge with this
Lancelot> detail fixed" will not be caught by the script.

Yeah.  For gdb, if we plan to use this, I think we should require a
gerrit-like Change-Id so that the process can be made more reliable.

Unfortunately this requires hacking on patchworks which I tend to doubt
is going to happen.

Lancelot> Also, I wish patchwork could automatically close a patches/series when a new
Lancelot> revision is sent to the ML. This is another class of patches which
Lancelot> remain on patchwork when they should probably not.  I did try to close
Lancelot> those manually in the past, but got overwhelmed, so I do not do that
Lancelot> anymore.

Me too.  Maybe the Change-Id thing could also be used to automate this.
In this case it's fine by me if the occasional patch slips past -- for
instance if someone drops a patch from a series, and the dropped patch
still shows up, I guess that is rare enough that I would be ok handling
it manually.

Lancelot> That being said, I still use git-pw to fetch and apply patch and series.
Lancelot> This is really convenient when I am not working on the host where I have
Lancelot> my mail client.

Have you tried b4 instead?  I haven't yet but it seems like the same
thing but without needing patchwork, just public inbox.


More information about the Gdb mailing list