On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > 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.
Does it make sense to enhance patchwork to inject such link into the commit automatically? It can also be a project configuration option so that other projects tracked by patchwork can turn it on on their needs. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot