From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43C7D3858D20 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 16:54:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 43C7D3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca Received: from [10.0.235.143] (modemcable075.250-20-96.mc.videotron.ca [96.20.250.75]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A519C1E0D3; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:54:50 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1666976091; bh=IeCkX6QvbvVne+0KR6zPpc6a1oeGgZIZhPj5KPq8NzE=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=ay/k4uMn58uCeF6P4y8Hg1ZF7q/eKE9OPxjAfFZk38Q1Dmulmq02QYUayZVG2+Z5W moqlc0eyKi6VQzKmtK3H7RGjTVstGHP+E2HhBOXecy9TITb4fdjy0pwvzYadJU92um dVGlreflQAoxarpjDJ3uONixReLwY/UQSwJpxDhg= Message-ID: <916a0332-306b-e28b-f750-d7abae61836c@simark.ca> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:54:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.0 Subject: Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF? Content-Language: fr To: John Baldwin , Luis Machado , "gdb@sourceware.org" Cc: Mark Wielaard References: <83485199-965e-7ff5-1dc8-d027b74b56f7@arm.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 2022-10-28 12 h 51, John Baldwin wrote: > On 10/28/22 9:16 AM, Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote: >> On 2022-10-27 06 h 47, Luis Machado via Gdb wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Having suggested a few topics for the GDB BoF (I noticed they were discussed, to some extent), are there >>> any concrete plans from the GDB global maintainers (leadership? I don't know how to call it) to address >>> some of those concerns? >>> >>> Simon was kind enough to cleanup the patchworks instance, though that is not yet fully integrated into >>> something we can easily use to do tests/CI. I see the number of unreviewed patches is growing again. >>> >>> For example, it is not easy to pick a patch to review. You need to locate the entry in your inbox so you >>> can reply to it. >> >> I do not know of a way to trigger CI tests from Patchwork, that would >> perhaps be a question for Mark (added in CC). >> >> On a personal note, coming back from the Cauldron, I set myself a goal >> to do more reviews as part of my daily work.  I'm trying to do around 1 >> hour a day of upstream reviews, and to choose what to review, I use >> patchwork, sorting patches by oldest date.  I check if the patch I'm >> looking at has already been reviewed, merged, or superseded by a new >> version, and if so I update its status.  Rinse and repeat until I find a >> patch that needs reviewing.  Otherwise, just looking at my inbox's >> gdb-patches folder with thousands of unread messages, I don't know what >> to start with.  Just by myself, I certainly won't get through the whole >> list of patches pending review, but I think it is a somewhat fair >> algorithm.  So in that regard, patchwork is useful for me. > > Interesting.  Does the date factor in pings?  That is, if you ping a series > does it move earlier in the list or does it keep its original date? > > Actually, I guess not all pings work.  I have a series I posted back on > July 7th and have pinged a few times since that doesn't show up in patchworks. > (And I only confirmed that by finding some other closed patch with my username > so I could do a query by username.)  Maybe because the pings were all replies > that had 'Re:' prefixes in the subject?  If we need to format pings in a > certain way, that would be good to know.  Alternatively, if old patch series > just need to be re-posted that would also be good to know. > > The web UI for patchworks also seems a bit buggy.  Not sure who to provide > feedback to?  Trying to do a text search on a series name (e.g. putting a > keyword in the series name field) just ignores the text field and returns all > patches.  Also, if you click on a different field like Submitter and then try > to go to another page, it resets the sort order on the second page to sort by > Date.  If you then change the sorting key on the second page, it reverts back > to the first page with the new key.  I haven't tried manually constructing the > parameters in the URL to get to the second page with a new key. Indeed, patches that were submitted previously don't appear. Simon