On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:08:09PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote:
Hi Tom,
I'm playing with the idea of including the patchwork patch ID in the commit message of each commit that I apply to provide better cross-reference ability.
- Access to comments on patches
- Clarity on exactly which version of a patch was applied
- No need to search by patch subject
Here is an example in a working branch:
http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-net.git;a=commit;h=48f9a0c786d0a3cbfdf45...
I'd prfer Patchwork or Patchwork-ID or something not just Patch.
Would it be more or less compelling if it had a format similar this?
Patchwork: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/571773/
Yes.
What do you (or anyone else) think?
Well, I'm not a super fan of it. For your second point, this is why I use bundles, mutt and a macro. For the other points, at least I find google does a good job pulling up the right patch at least.
Bundles seem awkward. Perhaps I'm just not using them effectively. What benefit do they give you? How are they part of your workflow?
OK, I'm going to delete this in a few days but here's my bundle for the last import I did: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/trini/2016-01-25-master-imports/ My flow is: 1) Assign all unassigned patches 2) Open my todo list in patchwork 3) Create a bundle with all of the patches I want based on my critera at the time. 4) Download bundle as mbox, git am -3 it, get big build going. 5) Open each patch link, check for Nak/Changed/Uncertanty that I missed at first 6) Assuming no repeats of part 4 of the cycle, mutt -f the bundle, for each email group reply, run macro to insert applied message, postponed 7) Check output from big build, assuming good results, push and spam out all of my queued messages.