On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:11 AM Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:34 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Thu, 31 May 2018, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 02:56:21PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > >> >> Virtualized non-PCH systems such as Broxton or Geminilake should use > > >> >> PCH_NONE to indicate no PCH rather than PCH_NOP. The latter is a > > >> >> specific case to indicate a PCH system without south display. > > >> > > > >> > Then let's go ahead and document it? > > >> > > >> Please avoid sending suggestion patches in-reply-to existing > > >> series. This confused patchwork and screwed up CI for the series, which > > >> was already a resend just to get CI. :( > > > > > > ugh, sorry. Sometimes just adding a oneline diff is much better than > > > a hundred words explaining :( ... > > > > I feel you, a patch is more precise. > > > > > IMO pw is trying to be smarter than it should here or not being smart > > > enough. Nonetheless I won't do that anymore. > > > > I think there were earlier complaints about what it did recognize and > > what it didn't. I'd be open to only accepting new versions of patches > > from whoever sent the original patch. Or requiring patch subjects don't > > start with "Re:". Or both. > > No matter what you do here it will misbehave in some scenarios and > break someone's workflow :< > > Originally we required the patches to have X-Mailer set to > git-send-email, which seems reasonable, but that annoyed people because > their servers were stripping out those headers. > > Other people send out the patches by feeding them to the drafts folder > through IMAP and then sending them out. This, depending on the > provider's configuration, also gobbles up a thing or two. > > Because of the above I am not sure about trusting "Re:" and matching > "From:" headers as good enough indicators either. > > It just adds more opaque "smartness". I already can foresee questions > asking "why my v2 was not picked up?" and someone would have to debug it > down the line. > > Was the address different (+XYZ before @)? Has that someone used > --subject-prefix=re:? Is it an actual bug? Etc. > > > > I was annoyed, but I'm perhaps more annoyed that you can't do this > > without confusing patchwork. In the end, I wouldn't want to hamper > > review by blocking something that comes naturally to people. > > > > Arek? > > Just add the following header: > "X-Patchwork-Hint: comment" > to emails that you type out manually. > > For mutt it's as easy as adding: > "my_hdr X-Patchwork-Hint: comment" > to your .muttrc This may not work for the same reasons you pointed out that wouldn't work if people are sending patches. Is there a format I can use that will not trigger patchwork from parsing a _reply_? Does removing the "--------" help? Under the hood does it use git am --scissors or similar? Lucas De Marchi > > https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/commit/148f10115525 > > -- > Cheers, > Arek -- Lucas De Marchi _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
