On 5/1/24 12:15, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/22/24 9:24 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried
Jason> unsuccessfully.
We tried it and gdb and then abandoned it. We tried to integrate it
into the traditional gdb development style, having it send email to
gdb-patches. I found these somewhat hard to read and in the end we
agreed not to use it.
I've come around again to thinking we should probably abandon email
instead. For me the main benefit is that gerrit has patch tracking,
unlike our current system, where losing patches is fairly routine.
Jason> I think this is a common pattern in GCC at least: someone has an
Jason> idea for a workflow improvement, and gets it working, but it
Jason> isn't widely adopted.
It essentially has to be mandated, IMO.
For GCC this seems somewhat harder since the community is larger, so
there's more people to convince.
I tend to think it's the principal reviewers that will drive this. If
several of the key folks indicated they were going to use system XYZ,
whatever it is, that would drive everyone to that system.
We're currently using patchwork to track patches tagged with RISC-V. We
don't do much review with patchwork. In that model patchwork ultimately
just adds overhead as I'm constantly trying to figure out what patches
have been integrated vs what are still outstanding.
Patchwork definitely isn't the answer IMHO. Nor is gitlab MRs which we
use heavily internally. But boy I want to get away from email and to a
pull request kind of flow.
Do you (or others) have any thoughts about GitLab FOSS?
Jason
