From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 75758 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2019 15:47:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 75747 invoked by uid 89); 28 Nov 2019 15:47:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=up-to-date, uptodate, H*f:sk:1277b1b, HX-Languages-Length:1819 X-HELO: us-smtp-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) (207.211.31.120) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:47:22 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1574956040; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yfkhyd0Z9dE8KT0aNJW8QVLDlhn1s/R8si1gI07qJGI=; b=DMU5na/Y4uS5SMgUWKVwPzCj1ttnPkQLh8d+94eTmRBkw19Xe4rIi29vNatBP9yTE14o4t rJbBP0LsZ8S7+NsfcXZzVEgkUPcnRjf1AlNVQjXHmas+BCOwkwzwE+IzugmaXW+BqzcUGk 5MbBJR5N8J26wTLY7/VA7BInmrfi1c8= Received: from mail-qv1-f72.google.com (mail-qv1-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-375-lgmFRenoO5KGoZRovULOgA-1; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:47:19 -0500 Received: by mail-qv1-f72.google.com with SMTP id d12so17125912qvj.16 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:47:19 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.4] (135-23-175-75.cpe.pppoe.ca. [135.23.175.75]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b35sm4430634qtc.9.2019.11.28.07.47.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:47:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [X-POST] patchwork.sourceware.org refresh To: Siddhesh Poyarekar , "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: GLIBC Devel , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, help-guix@gnu.org References: <78c774ef-9f9c-3339-aeb8-84636ee94360@gotplt.org> <1277b1bb-c3c4-6fc8-a700-c7207efd31cf@gotplt.org> From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: <30104df7-d224-0b62-5e95-22ced08659f1@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:47:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1277b1bb-c3c4-6fc8-a700-c7207efd31cf@gotplt.org> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg01108.txt.bz2 On 11/28/19 12:47 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 28/11/19 10:55 am, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >> Well, I've been using it to track the state my own patches submitted (and >> during the period of my active MIPS GDB port maintenance also for other >> people's submissions). > > Can you please take a snapshot of your state? > >> Is it actually necessary to destroy all the recorded state (not only for >> patches, but also for e-mail accounts linked, which AFAIK cannot be >> restored once you've lost access to any) just for an engine upgrade? >> That would be an odd requirement and ISTR at least one of the patchworks >> I've had an account with to have been seamlessly upgraded at one point. > > Hmm, I will try to do an in-place upgrade without actually deleting > anything. I can't promise that it will go well because we'll be > upgrading from a very ancient version and I don't know right now if the > schema has changed incompatibly. > > I'll do a backup too FWIW. When I looked at this the upgrade was *very* complicated, and carrying over the data from a version that is so old was going to be hard. >> Or do you have something else, i.e. not just an upgrade, in mind? > > To begin with, I intend to add hooks to close patchwork patches on merge > so that that aspect is automated. It was the one problem we had with > patchwork and with ChangeLogs gone in glibc, we're definitely a lot more > likely to get close to that goal. Agreed! For me as a reviewer, knowing what's up-to-date and ready for review, having a tool (like pwclient) to pull the patch and build a local branch from it, and then being able to use local diff tooling is really the key things to accelerate patch review for patches that don't require complex consensus. -- Cheers, Carlos.