On 07/05/2018 02:39 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-07-05 17:34:59 +:
On 2018-07-05 13:23:57 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
I wonder if it would be useful to move that step of determining the
topic out to a hook, so that project-specific
On 07/05/2018 12:46 PM, Andrew Grimberg wrote:
On 07/05/2018 09:13 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2018-07-05 09:03:44 -0700 (-0700), Andrew Grimberg wrote:
On 07/04/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[...]
For that matter, setting the topic based on the local branch
name could also get
On 2018-07-06 23:54:37 +0100 (+0100), Darragh Bailey wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, 02:57 Jeremy Stanley, wrote:
[...]
> > The change listing feature really seems increasingly out of place to
> > me, and most of the "fixes" I saw related to it were about
> > supporting more and more of Gerrit's
Perhaps sending that email right before taking a few days off meaning I
couldn't reply straight away wasn't the most helpful ;-)
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, 02:57 Jeremy Stanley, wrote:
> On 2018-07-04 22:32:53 +0100 (+0100), Darragh Bailey wrote:
> [...]
> > Based on the comments at
> >
>
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-07-05 17:34:59 +:
> On 2018-07-05 13:23:57 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> > I wonder if it would be useful to move that step of determining the
> > topic out to a hook, so that project-specific logic could be applied
> > as part of
On 07/05/2018 09:13 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2018-07-05 09:03:44 -0700 (-0700), Andrew Grimberg wrote:
>> On 07/04/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> [...]
>>> For that matter, setting the topic based on the local branch
>>> name could also get tossed while we're at it, and just keep the
On 2018-07-05 13:23:57 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> I wonder if it would be useful to move that step of determining the
> topic out to a hook, so that project-specific logic could be applied
> as part of submitting a patch?
In the way of spitballing some alternatives, we could have
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-07-05 16:13:16 +:
> On 2018-07-05 09:03:44 -0700 (-0700), Andrew Grimberg wrote:
> > On 07/04/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> [...]
> > > For that matter, setting the topic based on the local branch
> > > name could also get tossed while
On 2018-07-05 09:03:44 -0700 (-0700), Andrew Grimberg wrote:
> On 07/04/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[...]
> > For that matter, setting the topic based on the local branch
> > name could also get tossed while we're at it, and just keep the
> > -t option for directly specifying a change
On 07/04/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> And potentially controversially; support other workflows and
>> options outside of the OpenStack workflow. Although maybe not
>> directly, and still keeping the OpenStack one as the default.
>
> I'd love to know what about git-review is focused on
Jeremy already articulated my thoughts well; I don't have much to add.
But I think it's important to reiterate that I find it extremely
valuable that git-review perform its function ("push changes to Gerrit")
simply and reliably.
There are certainly projects we've created which are neglected due
On 2018-07-04 22:32:53 +0100 (+0100), Darragh Bailey wrote:
[...]
> Based on the comments at
> https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/git-review/tree/CONTRIBUTING.rst#n5,
> git-review is considered feature complete, and as a consequence it
> seems that reviewers have mostly moved onto
Indeed, git-review is one of the tools I use the most and it is sad it didn't
get more attention lately Clearly a project like this should not have open
CRsr that are more than two years old that didn't get any feedback on them ---
it sends a clear (bad) message to other potential
Hi,
Firstly, thanks for git-review, it's such a useful tool, and I use it all
the time working with Gerrit, from working on some openstack projects
(including the odd patch to git-review), various projects in work and the
very rare patch to Gerrit or it's plugins itself.
Based on the comments
14 matches
Mail list logo
