On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:05:01PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:08:09PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote: > >> >> Hi Tom, > >> >> > >> >> I'm playing with the idea of including the patchwork patch ID in the > >> >> commit message of each commit that I apply to provide better > >> >> cross-reference ability. > >> >> > >> >> * Access to comments on patches > >> >> * Clarity on exactly which version of a patch was applied > >> >> * No need to search by patch subject > >> >> > >> >> Here is an example in a working branch: > >> >> > >> >> http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-net.git;a=commit;h=48f9a0c786d0a3cbfdf45846567deaebe27a334a > >> > > >> > I'd prfer Patchwork or Patchwork-ID or something not just Patch. > >> > >> Would it be more or less compelling if it had a format similar this? > >> > >> Patchwork: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/571773/ > > > > Yes. > > Are you being funny (more and less == not)? Or did you miss-read? :)
Oops, yes, misread, yes, I like that. > >> >> What do you (or anyone else) think? > >> > > >> > Well, I'm not a super fan of it. For your second point, this is why I > >> > use bundles, mutt and a macro. For the other points, at least I find > >> > google does a good job pulling up the right patch at least. > >> > >> Bundles seem awkward. Perhaps I'm just not using them effectively. > >> What benefit do they give you? How are they part of your workflow? > > > > OK, I'm going to delete this in a few days but here's my bundle for the > > Doesn't that mean it will very soon not be traceable exactly which > patch version was applied? What I was proposing would mean that the > commit message could continue to refer back to the patch even if > archived. It means the the link I gave for the bundle will be gone. The patches will be there, but I will also move them from Under Review to Accepted. > > last import I did: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/trini/2016-01-25-master-imports/ > > My flow is: > > 1) Assign all unassigned patches > > 2) Open my todo list in patchwork > > 3) Create a bundle with all of the patches I want based on my critera at > > the time. > > 4) Download bundle as mbox, git am -3 it, get big build going. > > 5) Open each patch link, check for Nak/Changed/Uncertanty that I missed > > at first > > 6) Assuming no repeats of part 4 of the cycle, mutt -f the bundle, for > > each email group reply, run macro to insert applied message, postponed > > 7) Check output from big build, assuming good results, push and spam out > > all of my queued messages. > > Gotcha. Thanks! > > I'm trying to improve my workflow now, and this Patch tag was > something that came out of it. It's not required for the workflow, but > it is free to do within it. It has the potential to slightly simplify > one possible workflow, so no big deal. > > If people think it will be simply noise, I'll leave it out. > > I think this may speed up cross-referencing. Seemed like a good thing. My concern is that since it's not injected by patchwork already I would have to add it to each commit. Today, unless I need to either make something apply or do a minor fixup to the contents, I don't modify any commit message, so my git am is it. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot