This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Patch review workflow [was: is live!]


By the way, I suggest that the patch review workflow is kept in sync as
much as possible between all projects using the
<> instance, so that we don't have to
remember too many deviations.  Does Siddhesh's proposal (quoted below) as
well as <>
generally make sense for GDB, too?

On Tue, 27 May 2014 08:49:04 +0200, I wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2014 15:33:58 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar <> wrote:
> > I
> > have proposed a new state of 'Committed' that reflects that the patch
> > has been committed to git, a state different from being accepted by a
> > reviewer.
> Makes sense, as the action of committing may be the submitter's,
> reviewer's, or someone else's.
> > I have also marked some states in green - those are states that should
> > effectively close the patch.  I just found out that I can mark states
> > as 'Need Action' and figured that all states except those marked in
> > green could be marked as such in patchwork.
> > 
> > So in summary, the proposals are:
> > 
> > 1. Add a new 'Committed' state
> > 2. Mark the 'Accepted' as 'Needs Action' so that it shows up in the
> > pending patches list.
> Sounds good to me.


Attachment: pgpZzFtyhf2PM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]