On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.u.boot@aribaud.net wrote:
Hi Vadim,
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:33:46 -0800, Vadim Bendebury (вб) vbendeb@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.u.boot@aribaud.net wrote:
Hi Vadim,
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:21:27 -0800, Vadim Bendebury (вб) vbendeb@google.com wrote:
For the purposes of this demo the patches submitted for review were generated by a script I wrote. The script scrapes http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/, downloads the patches from there and tries applying them. Not all patches apply cleanly (as some of them are for branches).
How do we intend to handle this? Will we move to a single repository, with each patch getting reviewers assigned based on which parts of the code it touches? Or move from repos to branches, one per current custodian repo? Or something else yet?
Hi Albert,
I *think* the way to go is to create multiple projects, one per custodian, such that the upload URLs are different.
If the patch applies cleanly, the script adds two stanzas to the patch
- Change-Id: generated by git
- Patch-At: a reference to the patchwork page where the patch was
downloaded from
'Patch-At' seem ininformative to me. Why not 'Patchwork-URL'?
It should not be there at all, scraping the patchwork is just a means of seeding the server with patches to show how this looks.
In the proper use case each user will puth their patches to the server, so there is no need in the cross reference to patchwork.
and uploads the patch for review as the user named 'Gerrit Tester'. Each upload creates a new git branch just for review purposes.
(I'm skipping the gerrit workflow description here as I have used gerrit extensively in my, ahem, previous job)
I'm fine with using gerrit and yes, it can be a useful tool, not only regarding review, but also for learning the whys and hows of code changes through the comments from both reviewers and submitters (and I am in strong favor of a policy that every reviewer comment must be addressed by a supmitter reply, even the default will-do one.
exactly, this is the main advantage IMO also, keeping track of changes and comments becomes so much more robust.
Also, gerrit allows to see diffs between patches, this is what email based review system can not easily deliver.
One drawback though: I cannot seem to be able to use my U-Boot mail address, even though it is a secondary address of my G+ account; gerrit only wants to see my gmail address. I sure hope that I am not required to use a gmail address to identify myself as the author of my own patches within the U-Boot project.
This should not be the case, but there are some kinks with multiple accounts. Can you try opening an 'incognito' window and sign up through it?
I did try anyway, but it did nothing, and that was quite predictable, and here's why: I didn't mean gerrit got mixed up between two of my Google+ accounts, as I only have one account, and can thus only log in with this one. But This account's main address i a gmail one, and my so-to-speak "U-Boot e-mail address", which I use for the ML, and in 'Copyright' lines in the U-Boot code base, and on Patchwork) is a secondary address of my Google+ account. And gerrit does not know of my secondary addresses, which make it unable to recognize me, once logged in, as the submitter of patches posted under my "U-Boot" address.
Moving everybody to bcc so that we could sort this out without disturbing the rest.
Have you tried creating a new account from the incognito window? You should be able to create an account with any arbitrary email.
--v
--vb
Amicalement,
Albert.