Stephen Finucane <[email protected]> writes: > One of my Red Hat colleagues showed me a tool this morning - patches [1] - > that > the QEMU community use. They seem to be building a huge JSON blob of > seriesified patches as part of a cron job [2], and that tool can > download/parse > this blob and apply locally stored patches. > > I noted that in that blob, _everything_ is considered to be part of a series. > I've seen this design before in the freedesktop instance [3] and wasn't too > pushed on it at the time as it seemed like a bit of a lie (those patches > aren't > actually in a series). However, the ability to see *all* patches in series- > patch manner, rather than the inverted patch-series manner, is actually rather > nifty. If would also mean testing of patches could happen without needing to > filter for both 'patch-created' (for non-series patches) and > 'series-completed' > events (for series patches). > > What do folks think? Any reason not to create a series for _all_ patches?
I kinda assumed this was already done. Just to clarify, as of right now, patchwork doesn't not put a single patch into a series? I like to think of all series (even those of one patch) as a branch. So, a bit like saying a branch can only have >1 commit and those of one commit are not on a branch. Weird to me.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
