> On 27 Jul 2017, at 17:08, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Try to sum up the initial problem was patches/series tracking > > So far there are 3 proposal > 1) PR/MR (GitLab/GitHub style) > 2) patchew > 3a) shared git repository > 3b) links to external git repositories > > 1) PR surely can trace the status of series and is ready to > use with small initial setup. Not clear if we would like > to do reviews with it; Not many answers to my survey yet, but so far a consensus that patches should be sent to the mailing list, which I interpret as an indication that people are comfortable with mail-based reviews. > 2) similar to patchwork with additional feature but missing > the state tracking part. Maybe would be not hard to add; To me, addresses a different issue, so I would propose both 1 and 2. Specifically, 1 addresses the server side (managing CI items, list of branches under review, build status, etc), whereas 2 addresses the mail side (turning patches into “CI items”). > 3a) Many disagree as not really git ideal and about > external contributions; > 3b) Does this improve knowing the state of series? Maybe > for internal developers only. I think that 1 implies 3, doesn’t it? > > 3a/3b seems quite manual job to do and not much solving > the state tracking (although solve other issues), maybe > some ideas could improve the current procedure. > > Maybe would be worth speaking with patchew author if > is easy doable and agree with the change. > > IMHO the "closest" (more suitable and easy to implement) > is 1. Agreed. But I think 2 would be a valuable addition, notably as an efficient way to deal with smaller patches. Thanks, Christophe > > Frediano > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel