Stephen Finucane <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, 2018-11-04 at 16:01 +0000, Christopher Baines wrote: >> Hey, >> >> I've been recently looking at setting up Patchwork, and been trying to >> get used to using it. So far, it's been going quite well, I've got a >> rough package and service for GNU Guix [1], and a test instance running >> [2]. > > Sounds like the actually deployment of Patchwork was a mostly painless > exercise? If so, good to hear :) If not, be sure to let us know of > anything in particular that hurt.
Yep, mostly painless :) >> I've become a bit stuck with re-sending a series of patches. The >> documentation [3] reads like there should be some involvement of the >> "initial" series, but so far with my limited testing, I seem to be >> creating new series [4]. > > I'm afraid the documentation you're referring to refers to the free- > desktop fork of Patchwork [1], which differs from upstream Patchwork > [2] you've deployed in some ways. One of those things is the support > for linking of series, which is incomplete in upstream Patchwork. This > fork also introduces a proper series view, which is something that is > also sadly missing from upstream. Ha! I completely missed that, I think I was searching around for usage information, and obviously stumbled on a different documentation site. >> So, I just wanted to check what the expectations are for creating a "new >> revision of the initial series" and how the cover letter subject is >> used? > > Upstream currently treats series as wholly independent from each other. > There is not currently any linking between them and once a series has > been sent, there's no way to modify it other than through changing the > name. We're planning to close this gap but, for now, the main focus is > on other features (time is limited). If this is a feature you really > need right now, the obvious solutions I can think of are to either port > the changes from the free-desktop fork into upstream, or simply deploy > that fork. Bear in mind that the fork has diverged significantly and > there are differences in the APIs and general features that you will > need to account for if you opt for the latter, but I guess it would be > less work in the short term. We do plan to close this gap sooner rather > than later (2.3, perhaps?) but we have no full-time developers and time > is always against us, heh. This is really helpful, thanks Stephen. I'm actually not too fussed about re-sending patches as series at the moment, it was just something I tried and wanted to follow up on. What I'm really trying to is get to the point where the series can be tested. I know you've written and talked about using Patchwork for this [1]. 1: https://that.guru/blog/patchwork-and-ci-in-a-tree/ I'll let you know how I get on :) Thanks again, Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
