Hi Vadim, On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:33:46 -0800, Vadim Bendebury (вб) <vben...@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Albert ARIBAUD > <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> wrote: > > Hi Vadim, > > > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:21:27 -0800, Vadim Bendebury (вб) > > <vben...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > >> For the purposes of this demo the patches submitted for review were > >> generated by a script I wrote. The script scrapes > >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/, downloads the patches > >> from there and tries applying them. Not all patches apply cleanly (as > >> some of them are for branches). > > > > How do we intend to handle this? Will we move to a single > > repository, with each patch getting reviewers assigned based on > > which parts of the code it touches? Or move from repos to branches, > > one per current custodian repo? Or something else yet? > > > > Hi Albert, > > I *think* the way to go is to create multiple projects, one per > custodian, such that the upload URLs are different. > > >> If the patch applies cleanly, the script adds two stanzas to the patch > > > >> > >> - Change-Id: generated by git > >> - Patch-At: a reference to the patchwork page where the patch was > >> downloaded from > > > > 'Patch-At' seem ininformative to me. Why not 'Patchwork-URL'? > > It should not be there at all, scraping the patchwork is just a means > of seeding the server with patches to show how this looks. > > In the proper use case each user will puth their patches to the > server, so there is no need in the cross reference to patchwork. > > > >> and uploads the patch for review as the user named 'Gerrit Tester'. > >> Each upload creates a new git branch just for review purposes. > > > > (I'm skipping the gerrit workflow description here as I have > > used gerrit extensively in my, ahem, previous job) > > > > I'm fine with using gerrit and yes, it can be a useful tool, not only > > regarding review, but also for learning the whys and hows of code > > changes through the comments from both reviewers and submitters > > (and I am in strong favor of a policy that every reviewer comment > > must be addressed by a supmitter reply, even the default will-do one. > > > > exactly, this is the main advantage IMO also, keeping track of changes > and comments becomes so much more robust. > > Also, gerrit allows to see diffs between patches, this is what email > based review system can not easily deliver. > > > One drawback though: I cannot seem to be able to use my U-Boot mail > > address, even though it is a secondary address of my G+ account; > > gerrit only wants to see my gmail address. I sure hope that I am not > > required to use a gmail address to identify myself as the author > > of my own patches within the U-Boot project. > > > > This should not be the case, but there are some kinks with multiple > accounts. Can you try opening an 'incognito' window and sign up > through it? I did try anyway, but it did nothing, and that was quite predictable, and here's why: I didn't mean gerrit got mixed up between two of my Google+ accounts, as I only have one account, and can thus only log in with this one. But This account's main address i a gmail one, and my so-to-speak "U-Boot e-mail address", which I use for the ML, and in 'Copyright' lines in the U-Boot code base, and on Patchwork) is a secondary address of my Google+ account. And gerrit does not know of my secondary addresses, which make it unable to recognize me, once logged in, as the submitter of patches posted under my "U-Boot" address. > --vb Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot