Setting up patchwork on sourceware

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:42:14PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > 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.

Ahh OK, in that case, they can be marked as RFC to 'hide' them from
the default view.

> > 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.

Ack, I have added this point to the document.

Siddhesh
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20140321/a030f37b/attachment.sig>