On 02/20/2014 04:09 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 15:59 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote: >> On 02/20/2014 03:52 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 01:22:56PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote: >>>> On 02/20/2014 01:14 PM, Martin Kosek wrote: >>>>> We had a discussion with other developers how better track who is >>>>> reviewing >>>>> which patch. Recently, we introduced the Reviewed-By tag in a commit >>>>> message, >>>>> but that is a post-review tag which is not useful for someone who wants >>>>> to know >>>>> which patches are already reviewed and which are not reviewed. >>>>> >>>>> We were testing Patch Work [1] in last months to contain this >>>>> information, but >>>>> I personally think that it is suboptimal - it introduces 2 tracking tools >>>>> that >>>>> needs to be maintained (Trac and Patch Work) and the Patch Work still >>>>> requires >>>>> lot of manual actions when maintaining it's state. >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be better to hold this information rather in a single >>>>> tracking >>>>> tool - Trac. There are 2 options: >>>>> >>>>> 1) "Patch on review" flag, similar to "Patch posted for review" flag which >>>>> would hold 1 bit information if the patch is just lying there or has >>>>> somebody >>>>> assigned. >>>>> >>>>> 2) "Reviewed by" text field which would hold a login of a person who is >>>>> reviewing it. It would be filled either by a person starting the review >>>>> or by a >>>>> supervisor like me to forcefully assign a reviewer ;-) >>>>> >>>>> With that information in Trac, we could run using a single tracking tool >>>>> for >>>>> all patches that have a ticket (which is 95% of patches). It would be then >>>>> fairly easy to see which patches are sent for review but are >>>>> reviewer-less. >>>>> >>>>> It would also have a benefit for Petr's sendpatches.py script which could >>>>> pull >>>>> the reviewer from a ticket and one would not have to use the "-r" option >>>>> to >>>>> hard code a reviewer. >>>>> >>>>> Any objections to using "Reviewed by" field? >>>> >>>> +1, this is the only thing I used Patchwork for, and keeping >>>> Patchwork up to date just for this took a lot of unnecessary >>>> mindless clicking. >>>> >>>> Just a nitpick: name it "Patch Reviewer" >>>> - there's more to a ticket than a patch >>>> - the review is not done yet when the field is filled out >>> >>> The only use-case I use patchwork for right now is a 'dashboard' to see >>> which patches need attention. If we could get this dashboard-like view >>> from Trac with some custom query, then I'm fine with deprecating >>> Patchwork. >> >> +1. I would like to add the reviewer to default report 3 + prepare a new view >> "My Active Reviews by Milestone" to see the reviews which one should track. >> >>> >>> However, one feature of patchwork was that each re-submission of a >>> patch triggered a new thread so as a reviewer you could easily see there >>> is a new instance of the patch that you need to look at. I suspect Trac >>> wouldn't give us anything like that? >> >> When I get a review, I like to get the response to inbox - then I always >> know. >> When replies are only being sent to the list, we would have to use the >> advanced >> Trac workflow and cautiously change states between accepted - submitted - >> onreview. > > I think this means we'll be back to have to carefully track the mailing > list because stuff will be missed. This is something patchwork "fixed". > I wonder if we can build some automatism to not loose the good things > here. > > Simo.
Majority of patches going to freeipa-devel are tied to some Trac ticket. These are tracked and watched by the on_review flag and the new reviewer field. Those that are not covered by any Trac ticket need to be tracked and cared of manually by the submitter IMO. Martin _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipa-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
