Hello Tom,
Am 18.11.2013 17:00, schrieb Tom Rini:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:07:59AM +1100, Graeme Russ wrote:
Hi All,
You do all realise that we are going about this, to use some British vernacular, arse-about-tit
Everyone agrees that the current U-Boot review workflow 'has issues' (and has had issues for quite some time). The first attempt at overcoming these issues was Patchwork. I personally think that that ended up being far less successful than we hoped
Maybe it's time to swing around back and talk about what's wrong with our current tools then.
Thanks!
What I don't like about patchwork:
- Some patches just don't make it in.
- Sometimes discussions can be a bit hard to follow there, but that's what real mail list archives are for.
Yep.
What I miss in patchwork:
- It would be great, if patchwork could detect newer version from patches and mark the old patches superseeded ... but maybe this is not trivial for all patches... and have somewhere in the new patch website a link to the superseeded patch, so I can easy find the old patch and can look in it.
- If a custodian change the state of a patch, send at least a EMail to the owner of the patch with the info of the state changes.
- Maybe a cmdline interface to change the state of a patch, so I do not need to open a webbrowser (not necessary, would just nice ;-)
That's it. The queue can get unwieldy if you don't check the unassigned patches daily, but I don't see how another tool is going to fix the underlying problem of people not using the tool frequently.
Yes, full ack.
What I like about patchwork:
- Bundles.
- Everything is mailbox format / git am'able.
- Patchwork collects the Acked-by, Tested-by,... for a patch - The custodians ToDo list! I see on one site, what I have ToDo, nice.
bye, Heiko