This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Setting up patchwork on sourceware
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:20:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: Setting up patchwork on sourceware
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140306194636 dot GB1722 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <5319204D dot 7090802 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20140307062516 dot GC1722 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20140307145135 dot GD1722 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20140318094039 dot GA8415 at domone dot podge> <20140318102227 dot GS1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <53285733 dot 9000300 at redhat dot com> <20140318145426 dot GT1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/18/2014 10:54 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24:51AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 03/18/2014 06:22 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:40:39AM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
>>>> I am there, when will you move patchwork to sourceware?
>>>
>>> I've added you to the glibc project maintainers, so you should be able
>>> to change state for patches you review.
>>>
>>> I was looking for feedback from maintainers (and a go-ahead of sorts)
>>> on the set up before setting up the sourceware instance. Carlos made
>>> it clear that we want to keep the service on sourceware, so I don't
>>> mind doing it right away if everyone is OK.
>>
>> We will move it to sourceware if developers can find a useful workflow
>> and several of us agree that it's a good thing to have.
>>
>> So far I'm happy with the workflow and I have been tagging patches
>> as reviewed when I review them. I'm also doing work others would normally
>> do by cleaning the patch queue for committed patches.
>
> ... which reminds me that I had volunteered to do a write-up of a
> workflow for us. I'll post a draft this week.
Thanks. I'll copy-edit. Tell me when it's ready.
I've used the following states already:
New - Nobody has reviewed it yet.
Under review - Someone is looking at the patch.
Accepted - There is consensus for this change.
Rejected - There is consensus that's it's a bad idea.
Change Requested - Reviewed and needs rework.
Cheers,
Carlos.
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTKGQuAAoJECXvCkNsKkr/wacH/3DoOsQfdrEiYb/AcsA+BQ/x
C3aBvfmTFjXoh5MombseTYC95ThbcSpcP3QQnH8wQnuL9hxYf+iJyNCy1Qe3nKKG
/7azbzvl/ySoi6tDSFSlVp8ad+us0aa41z7LvjblNLEFvujfv2kmeb5RSXTOhrsW
TWsgrllZf1TTIPyNeB7WhqUB8KkTVxTlxmth3yoiK0KcvibmuR7o0+NpI7MvdPwp
nIVNFrjWfeduAENizG78Dg5GsM9SbELBWWWn/g11FkCcD17r5SwUhPxYD7v659sM
fJP5axXmx4I0wkjnJyANDQv3pqKz8kdbvIqi5lXIHbnkWaAb+rkdsw5HtpjIvbs=
=fkKY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----