On Wed, 2018-11-07 at 19:03 +0000, Christopher Baines wrote: > 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 :)
Do please! Just FYI that blog was written against a pre-release version of 2.0 so some things might be out-of-date. I've just pushed up some updates that I've had lying around since last year (!) but they might be incomplete. If you see anything weird, feel free to give me a shout and I'll update. Stephen > Thanks again, > > Chris _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
