On 26 Dec 15:56, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: [snip]
> > I've used regexps for convenience, we could possibly replace them with a > > less > > dangerous type of pattern. One option I was toying with was to create rules > > automatically from MAINTAINERS, but I don't think that would be flexible > > enough. > > > > IMHO, the real problem here is the need that everybody with write > access should be project maintainer in patchwork, and it lacks logs > when a patch is delegated or changed its status. > > I would very much prefer to be able to delegate a patch to a driver > maintainer (with I don't have much trustee enough to promote it to > a Project Maintainer), but, in this case, I would need logs if such > person changes the patch status or delegates the patch to somebody > else. I would also expect that the project maintainers would receive > any notification e-mails if such person changes the status. > > Even better, I would like to be able to approve such changes for the > ones I don't trust enough, as I would need to confirm if the patch > change is associated with enough review emails at the ML, and, in > the case of patch acceptance, I would need to take the action of > adding the patch on my tree. Agreed - we do need some form of authentication model: patchwork is "trusting" to a fault at the moment. We should be concerned that by adding such a feature we'd subtract from one of patchwork's guiding principles, which is that patchwork should be simple. However, I think this is important enough that we can accept any potential complexity. I've opened an issue to track this feature request [1]. I'm happy to accept patches from anyone who'd care to investigate it. Stephen [1] https://waffle.io/getpatchwork/patchwork/cards/568a410a5367701600afa13a _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
