On 10/23/2012 11:18 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 10/23/2012 03:04 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 18:03 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
Hello fellow developers,
We have discussed for a while among us about how to improve patch
tracking for review purposes. Various method have been discussed for
quite some time now (including gerrit and review board) but for one
reason or another we haven't done much.
I have now set up a patchwork instance here:
https://patchwork.acksyn.org
Patchwork is a very lightweight system that doesn't take over our
current practices (although may require minor changes).
Most importantly it does not replace our mailing list with a new system
that pretends to take over the whole process.
With patchwork review happens on the mailing list as usual but the
server does automatic tracking of patches updating with comments sent to
the mailing list.
Feel free to get a login there, and start managing your own patches.
I will keep a look on the system and override patch status for those
that choose not to use it.
The server has just been installed and I am still configuring it.
If you have any issue please contact me privately or on this list so we
can try to address it.
I hope we will find the tool useful.
There is just one thing that patchwork does not handle well, and that is
multiple patches sent in the same mail as attachment.
See what happend here: https://patchwork.acksyn.org/patch/2 where I sent
three patches and only the last one was picked up by the system.
Patchwork[1] has been developed mostly in the kernel community and there
the rule is to send 1 patch per mail by using git send-mail.
I will switch to use git send-mail (and resend the above set as a test)
so that patchwork is happy, I hope you all can try to use it as well so
that we can try to use patchwork for all patches.
However I do not want to force people to use git send-mail.
If you are not going to use git send-mail however I would like to ask
you to not send more than one patch per mail message, and instead send
different patches in different messages.
Traditionally this is done by using a patchset header of [PATCH 0/5] and
then following one mail per patch [PATCH 1/5] and then PATCH[2/5]
etc ... the subject should stay the same for all patches in the same
patchset.
If you have questions or proposal please let me know.
Also patchwork is python+django so if you have an itch and want to
scratch it then feel free to send patches to me as well as upstream so
we can improve the tool.
In case you wonder how to use git send-mail here are a couple of things
I do to make it easier.
1. I cloned my public review repo on the machine I use for email so I
can push directly from there even when the patches are built on my
development machines.
2. set the [sendemail] option for the outgoing smtp server in
~/.gitconfig
3. I create 2 aliases that make the process just s simple 2 commands:
alias prep-freeipa='rm -fr $HOME/git-send-mail && git format-patch -M
-C --patience --full-index -n --cover-letter -o $HOME/git-send-mail'
alias send-freeipa='git send-email --no-chain-reply-to --to
"freeipa-devel@redhat.com" --suppress-cc=all $HOME/git-send-mail/*patch'
This first alias is called like this:
$ prep-freeipa -3
It will create a bundle for the lst 3 patches in the tree and dump
patches as well as a standard cover letter in a directory called
$HOME/git-send-mail
I then vim $HOME/git-send-mail/0000-cover-letter.patch, where you need
to add a subject and fill in the body of the presentation email
Then call simply send-freeipa without any option.
It will ask a couple of questions to which you can normally just hit
return (defaults are usually ok).
HTH,
Simo.
Thanks. I do have some critique. Hopefully it's just unfounded
resistance to change:
The fact that patches are now e-mails, not files, makes it a bit harder
to work with them. Also, they do not have filenames. We'll need to
reword https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/wiki/PatchFormat.
I'm not sure about the separate emails thing. More patches per e-mail
made it clear what's dependent on what, and probably made it easier to
ensure the whole thing is pushed at once. With the current practice,
sometimes patches are forgotten, and I fear this will worsen.
I guess if Thunderbird can be somehow taught to treat the patch mails as
replies to the cover letter, it would be better than we have now. Alas,
it didn't do so for the patches you've sent.
What's the preferred workflow for applying git-sent patches? It seems
that in Thunderbird, I need to View Source: Ctrl+U, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, and
copy that to a console with `git am` running.
I like the idea behind the tool but the limit 'one mail one patch' seems
bothersome. Sending looks easy but applying not. How would you download
and apply 4 patches from separate mails by reasonable amount of actions?
Right not I just save all attachments to a directory and run git am
(assuming that mail client doesn't add '>' to the begging of patch).
I think git was designed to work directly with a mailbox. Is it the
correct way? Can be sending patches as mails and attachments be combined?
--
Petr Vobornik
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
