Re: Patch review workflow [was: patchwork.sourceware.org is live!]

Thomas Schwinge <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha,gmane.comp.gdb.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi!

By the way, I suggest that the patch review workflow is kept in sync as
much as possible between all projects using the
<http://patchwork.sourceware.org/> instance, so that we don't have to
remember too many deviations.  Does Siddhesh's proposal (quoted below) as
well as <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Patch%20Review%20Workflow>
generally make sense for GDB, too?

On Tue, 27 May 2014 08:49:04 +0200, I wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:33:58 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I
> > have proposed a new state of 'Committed' that reflects that the patch
> > has been committed to git, a state different from being accepted by a
> > reviewer.
> 
> Makes sense, as the action of committing may be the submitter's,
> reviewer's, or someone else's.
> 
> > I have also marked some states in green - those are states that should
> > effectively close the patch.  I just found out that I can mark states
> > as 'Need Action' and figured that all states except those marked in
> > green could be marked as such in patchwork.
> > 
> > So in summary, the proposals are:
> > 
> > 1. Add a new 'Committed' state
> > 2. Mark the 'Accepted' as 'Needs Action' so that it shows up in the
> > pending patches list.
> 
> Sounds good to me.


Grüße,
 Thomas
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 472 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJThDZzAAoJEK3/DN1sMFFt+9IH/2zCevTIGeUOAoNsOkBOmsFu
q/7EP9zKnjbK3Kgp/ZxkKHbqv5m7dYs0S9tyOeqVUi6BOqTyk8nuqz1Kfc+NNpPF
ghmOTM9ivk3t9F7/OL/i6XZ455kHflhVoYCiBtrNfZhD3Z1fQagGtui67w62BPI/
PIU03NH7jr3n1EC4u4odj4QjuRscTFazOfwtv/Go0791HdP9/HjhVJwpxEhpY62L
M5kAtEPv4KE0ibplj70IhH6mW9fchWUcLY2wpRdVmio6Jt7AegEaWOOdl4XRpTLD
/1ux0FaHjQCq5t3rFHSq8i6TBdtYEVDYVOeu+L7fMmbqzEUpMe9/Y8lpwFV6/3k=
=BhGo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.