On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:09:22AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > >>> I see several benefits to doing this: > > > >>> > > > >>> 1. We always know exactly which component and branch is being patched > > > >>> > > > > > > > > As long as contributor keep pinging or resending his series, this is > > > > already the case. > > > > > > As Frediano said at the beginning of the series, “I’m tired of hearing this > > > reply”. > > > > And this is not an actionable answer... My perception is that there > > rarely are 'ping' on old series. Does this mean we are doing a good job > > at reviews? (I doubt it or we would not have this conversation) Does > > this mean patch senders do not want to do that? Why? Does this mean it's > > done a lot, but to no avail? All I'm reading is "I'm not happy with how > > things work", with nothing specific. > > > > Patch series are getting old (even years) repeatedly pinged (5/6 times) > but they continue to not getting any feedback/ack/comment. > If you can't remember any... this just confirms the problem. So I went through my mails (searched for mails containing 'ping'), in the last months I found 24 series which needed a ping, among these, 3 needed several pings, and it stopped at 2 pings. Maybe I missed some. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 3. If you want to test, a git checkout is enough to test (assuming you > > > >>> did > > > >>> the git fetch above). Simpler IMO than git am (even if I assume most of > > > >>> us > > > >>> have scripts to process incoming mail) > > > > > > > > qemu uses patchew, I think it would be worth to consider it for > > > > spice as well. It applies the patches on a mailing list, run some > > > > tests, gives you a stable URL, tracks the review (and the various > > > > iteration recently iirc)… > > > > > > Good tool, but different problem. > > > > I personally don't know which exact problem we are tackling ;) I see > > some people having issues keeping track of pending series, others saying > > that CI would be nice, ... Are we trying to solve one single very specific > > problem? If yes, what is it? Patch reviews not being done in a timely > > manner? Patch series being forgotten? Patch series status hard to know > > by email? Something else? (note that you said "problem", not "problems" > > :) > > > > Christophe > > > > If the review is done months after been sent to the ML the author > has to review again the patches, not counting the time he has to > spend to update the series and test it again (as the master in the > meantime has moved). > > Just for instance the png patches were sent on November and > are being seriously reviewed this month (so 8 months after). > I agree in this case where not pinged that much there were > also different discussion on them about. > There are a lot of stuff that get lost if the review is done > so late. Think about the searches done on the web, the experiments > before coming to that version, the commands used which could be > helpful again, talks with other people. Ok, I take from that email that the main issue is untimely reviews, with which I agree. However, what we are currently discussing is how to better keep track of pending patch series. If the reason for the untimely reviews is that people are not aware that series A and B need reviewing, then I agree this is going to help. If the reason for the delayed reviews is because we don't have enough reviewers, no tools are going to help us here. Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel