Re: Patches submission policy change

[Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:30, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Dear release managers and developers,
> >
> > TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
> > workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
> > that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during the
> > last GNU toolchain office hours meeting [1] (2024-03-28).
> >
> > Benefits or this change include:
> > - Increased compatibility with precommit CI
> > - No need to manually edit patches before submitting, thus the “git
> > send-email” workflow is simplified
> > - Patch reviewers can be confident that the committed patch will be
> > exactly what they approved
> > - Precommit CI can test exactly what has been submitted
> >
> > Any concerns/objections?
>
> Yes: Patch size. And no, not sending patches inline is bad practice.
Not sure what you mean? Do you mean sending patches as attachments is
bad practice?

> Even assuming sending patches bi-modal (inline and as attachment) works
> (please indicate whether that's the case), it would mean extra work on
> the sending side.
>
For the CI perspective, we use what patchwork is able to detect as patches.
Looking at recent patches submissions, it seems patchwork is able to
cope with the output of git format-patch/git send-email, as well as
attachments.
There are cases where patchwork is not able to detect the patch, but I
don't know patchwork's exact specifications.

Thanks,

Christophe

> Jan