On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:16:07AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:09 AM Lucas De Marchi > <lucas.de.marchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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? Yeah, it's far for perfection and needs additional effort to set the header up. For me it works, but I always send patches via git-send-email and always send replies via mutt - I am the simple case. > Humn... it has its own parser. So if I read > https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/blob/master/patchwork/parser.py#L36 > correctly, it should be just a matter of omitting the "diff | ---" > lines (or prepending with a "#"). > > It does make things more difficult if the other person would use "git > am --scissors" though. > > Lucas De Marchi Yes, that is my understanding as well - if you would ommit the "diff header" it should not recognize your mail as a patch. But that's yet another behavior you have to know upfront. It's really hard to strike a balance here. One idea is to optimize for the default case (i.e. behavior of git-send-email), sans the known quirks we have seen so far, and write this down. Then, if some patches are getting ignored, this would make a handy checklist that can be use for troubleshooting and we can also link to it, kindly asking to adhere to a more standard way of sending patches. -- Cheers, Arek _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
