On 26 Dec 13:23, Laurent Pinchart wrote: [snip]
> > However, all this is me thinking out loud for now, and I'm busy enough > > reviewing patches and trying to get something approaching series > > support into upstream (plus, you know, my day job) to volunteer > > implementing this. As such, if you agree with my idea but don't think > > it worth the effort (or just flat out disagree) then I'm happy to > > give my review comments on this with an eye to merging it shortly. If > > you do agree though, maybe we should hold off merging this until we > > explore these options? > > > > Thoughts? > > I generally like implementing features in a generic way, but as an occasional > patchwork user I have a hard time judging how useful it would be. The trust > issue that Johannes raised should also be considered here, to make sure that > a > malicious user wont be able to take advantage of either the criteria or the > action to attack the patchwork host. Yeah, I haven't exactly scoped it out enough yet to begin working on it. It's probably best to add such a feature to the backlog and add it in the future if the need arises (i.e. we get another "hook"-style feature request). I'll work on getting this merged in the interim. Stephen _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
