Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow.

Hello,

Lancelot SIX via Gdb <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 09:39:02AM +0100, Luis Machado via Gdb wrote:
>> So, in summary, I see the proposal to add tags as a way to improve a patch reviewing
>> system that
>> is not being capable of keeping up with demand. I doubt we would need such tagging if we
>> had a
>> proper reviewing system in place (be it gerrit, patchworks or any other).
>> 
>
> Hi,
>
> As far as I understand, patchwork can see the R-b and T-b tags and
> update patches metadata based on that.  An up-to-date patchwork instance
> is available for GDB
> (https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gdb/list/) and old patches
> have been archived.  It is in a clean state if we want to try using it
> (or re-try, I believe this have been tried in the past but there were
> too much limitations at the time).
>
> If R-b and T-b tags are being adopted, patchwork sounds like a good
> candidate tool to help to monitor the patches pending review/approval.
>
> What is still unknown to me at the moment is how much effort does it
> take to keep patchwork up-to-date with events it fails to detect (like
> patches merged with minor changes).  I am currently experimenting
> tracking patches with it (I think Simon is too).  Nothing compulsory to
> anyone of course.  The tool is there for those who want. The pure ML
> based workflow will not be impacted with this.   Having Bruno's proposal
> in would certainly help.

FWIW I like Bruno's proposal, it would bring clarity to the patch review
and approval process. And as Lancelot mentioned, it also helps people
using patchwork.

Carlos O'Donell mentioned at GNU Tools Cauldron that patchwork has been
very helpful for him with managing glibc patches, and that he would
still use it even if no one else in that community did since it helps
him keep track of the review state of the patches.

-- 
Thiago