Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans

[Jeff Law]

On 4/22/24 9:24 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried
> Jason> unsuccessfully.
> 
> We tried it and gdb and then abandoned it.  We tried to integrate it
> into the traditional gdb development style, having it send email to
> gdb-patches.  I found these somewhat hard to read and in the end we
> agreed not to use it.
> 
> I've come around again to thinking we should probably abandon email
> instead.  For me the main benefit is that gerrit has patch tracking,
> unlike our current system, where losing patches is fairly routine.
> 
> Jason> I think this is a common pattern in GCC at least: someone has an
> Jason> idea for a workflow improvement, and gets it working, but it
> Jason> isn't widely adopted.
> 
> It essentially has to be mandated, IMO.
> 
> For GCC this seems somewhat harder since the community is larger, so
> there's more people to convince.
I tend to think it's the principal reviewers that will drive this.  If 
several of the key folks indicated they were going to use system XYZ, 
whatever it is, that would drive everyone to that system.

We're currently using patchwork to track patches tagged with RISC-V.  We 
don't do much review with patchwork.  In that model patchwork ultimately 
just adds overhead as I'm constantly trying to figure out what patches 
have been integrated vs what are still outstanding.

Patchwork definitely isn't the answer IMHO.  Nor is gitlab MRs which we 
use heavily internally.  But boy I want to get away from email and to a 
pull request kind of flow.

jeff