Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans

On 5/1/24 12:15, Jeff Law wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Do you (or others) have any thoughts about GitLab FOSS?

Jason