From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64F8F1F4B5 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:53:24 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=tN8qg2NmixcsLaUntsCUGBowcaDirox6IkdJsJ2JV3t pTARmTaatbHAZ9hfwa6U3aPlb5Qc9An59hLCbEbc8hLLbffMHa67G4W/K8+SeyYy sxU39510G1BuZjJuStDxbMX5z/LcXQxi/PFVTRYoJ4+4ERvm3SgOWab+Aywq6QWQ = DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=d2YELbr+GbgTIV0xYds2Pz49WY4=; b=C1Q/GxykohWSxMbgO uIIobXwrZPnL0wafa4ugkl4zgcryJV6TJs/hUWuSf8A+Ip/Wk4FmKpbGVz/QT18L FlES+HP457jYtaWI4TQ+S6CjIuOz+sKUtjYn/nRBizEwF/2Gjt+QIzHeDYZhKuY9 L7JzJvB2aDWs6X/7THIByLdxFY= Received: (qmail 19456 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2019 18:53:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 19447 invoked by uid 89); 12 Nov 2019 18:53:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: smtpout1.mo803.mail-out.ovh.net Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:53:03 -0300 From: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" To: Carlos O'Donell CC: libc-alpha , Sergio Durigan Junior Subject: Re: Setup non-pushing gerrit instance for glibc. Message-ID: <20191112155303.2215a667@tereshkova.br.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <2e93ece9-386b-c587-9355-33a4695a3f02@redhat.com> References: <2e93ece9-386b-c587-9355-33a4695a3f02@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 18418315101329215081 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddvledguddulecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjqdffgfeufgfipdevjffgvefmvefgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucehtddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkjghfofggtgfgihesthejredtredtvdenucfhrhhomhepfdfirggsrhhivghlucfhrdcuvfdrucfiohhmvghsfdcuoehgrggsrhhivghlsehinhgtohhnshhtrghnthgvrdhnvghtrdgsrheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehsohhurhgtvgifrghrvgdrohhrghenucfkpheptddrtddrtddrtddpudejjedrleejrddvheehrddukeeknecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdqohhuthdphhgvlhhopefgigegrdgvmhhprdhlohgtrghlpdhinhgvtheptddrtddrtddrtddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgrggsrhhivghlsehinhgtohhnshhtrghnthgvrdgvthhirdgsrhdprhgtphhtthhopehsvghrghhiohgujhesrhgvughhrghtrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd Hi, community, I finally used gerrit today. Afterwards, I re-read this thread and here are my impressions and questions... First of all, thanks for doing this. :) (CC'ing Sergio, because I don't know if he follows the list and I have a question for him) 1. On Reviewed-by statements, On Tue, 12 Nov 2019, Florian Weimer (Code Review) wrote: > >(I'm not sure if we can keep up the practice of adding Reviewed-By: lines >with Gerrit, because doing so creates a new patch version that needs >review.) Florian noticed [1] that Reviewed-by statements might break our use of gerrit, because changing the commit message creates a new version of the patch. Carlos mentioned that having the statements is useful for his metrics (I also like these fields, even though I don't use them as professionally). If we are going to make gerrit push automatically one day, could we make it add the Reviewed-by statement automatically (based on the Reviewers field) when it pushes the change? Maybe it doesn't even need to create a new version of the patch with the new commit message (although it would be nice if it could create some sort of link between the patch that actually gets commit and the patch displayed in the web interface (the same that is sent to the mailing list)). If that is possible, then the patch author (or even the reviewers) won't need to change the commit message *during patch review*, which will avoid the creation of the new patch version. [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-11/msg00404.html 2. On in-reply-to fields, Also in the same review [1], I noticed that the emails sent to the mailing list are threaded in a weird way. Everything seems to be sent in-reply-to the first email of the thread, similar to bugzilla's behavior. That is only a bit weird when it comes to patch versions, because the subject lines contain a [review vN] tag, making it somewhat easier (although not perfect) to distinguish which messages belong to each version. It will maybe become a bit more weird if a long discussion happens in a sub-thread. 3. On quote selection freedom, When writing reviews by email, I like to select the precise amount of quotes (stitching different quotes together, and snipping unimportant parts) that I judge relevant for the conversation. This is, obviously, a subjective judgment and I don't expect any tool to be able to do the same ever (famous last words?). My point here is, I didn't find a way to do that (adjust the amount of quote and snipping) on the web interface. On Fri, 08 Nov 2019, Simon Marchi wrote: > >So please try to use "Quote" instead of "Reply" and quote >the relevant portion of what you are replying to (just like you would by >email), so that it appears in the notification email. Simon mentioned [2] a "Quote" (button?). Maybe that is what I wanted and couldn't find. Like others in the community, I think I prefer using email, which gives me freedom to select the amount of quoting and snipping I want, so maybe this will never be a problem to anyone. [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-11/msg00306.html 4. On the "patches go missing" problem, On Sun, 27 Oct 2019, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > >When the GDB community decided to give gerrit a try, the main problem it >was looking to solve was the "patches go missing" issue. Basically, we >have a lot of patches being sent to the project and not so many >reviewers, so it's not uncommon for a patch to get "buried" waiting for >a review, and if the author doesn't ping it, it gets lost. With gerrit, >you can get a pretty good view of all the patches that were submitted so >far, and you can always check if a patch is too old or if it's been too >long since the last interaction on it. Can you (GDB community) already tell if gerrit actually helped with those patches that went missing, or is it to soon? While I understand that gerrit has the potential to help with that, I also get the impression that patches will still pile up, but on the web interface, instead of on the mailing list. I get this impression because our patchwork instance has piles of patches (btw, this is not an inquisitorial kind of question - my heart is still open for the new tool - I just want to know if you think gerrit is helping).