Re: Patchwork patch tracking system
Eric Christopher <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALehDX6F9wMzSMF2iA-UdGnOTSxpj6uywbad84Uy=HmBnu88Gw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Joel Brobecker <[email protected]> wrote: >> > So if we try it and like it, how does one go about transitioning >> > from "trial" to "real"? >> >> I guess by the people doing the reviewing deciding to use it. >> It may be it is useful even with only a subset of reviewers >> using it. I can't determine this myself, I need feedback from >> people who are reviewing regularly. > > In my opinion, the GDB project is in dire need of a way to track > patches. Using one's mailbox to track patches just does not work. > But I think that we would need full commitment to the tool from > the project, or else it'd quickly start overflowing with stale > info. > > There is a tool that we use internally at AdaCore which I was starting > to think of proposing for GDB, called geritt. From what I have been > able to see from patchwork's webpage, geritt seems like a much more > advanced system compared to patchwork. But the tradeoff is that using > geritt requires a bit more work as well, and that part or all of > the review process would happen on geritt, rather than the mailing-list. > It's not very intuitive at first, but it is very easy and lightweight. > > I personally believe geritt's approach to be better in the long run. > But, while I am worried about having communication and patch handling > be done via two distinct systems, patchwork's simpler approach might be > working well enough without requiring the big shift in patch-reviewing > paradigm. > FWIW we (some of the google folk) looked at geritt for LLVM and discarded in favor of phabricator. It seemed to solve a lot of the problems that we had and allowed communication to and from the mailing lists for patches which was key for us as we have a similar review style to gcc/gdb/binutils. We didn't want to remove the ability for people to send patches to the mailing lists, but yet get a better review mechanism for large patches/queuing/etc. Just piping in since we recently did some of this work. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions on our experiences. -eric