Setting up patchwork on sourceware
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
Fri Mar 21 16:42:00 GMT 2014
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:30:50PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > What's the right state for "the patch was only ever an RFC or proof of
> > concept rather than proposed for inclusion as-is"?
>
> There is an 'RFC' status available in the default list which we can
> use for such patches, but marking the patch as RFC by the submitter
> would mean that reviewers may never see them in the default view,
> which shows only unresolved patches, i.e. those in NEW state.
My point is basically that such patches *shouldn't* be shown by default,
as they aren't pending review.
> I'll see if there's a way to change the default view so that it shows
> patches in states other than just NEW. If that is not possible
> immediately, then we could continue using the RFC and/or WIP tag on
> the email subject to indicate such patches.
One thing that's visible in the present tracker data is that the subjects
of many patches don't really reflect the patch content. I think we'll
need conventions that if you post a patch in reply to something then you
change the Subject of your email to reflect the patch itself rather than
the thread it was in reply to.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list