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 9DA833858D20; Thu, 2 May 2024 14:26:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9DA833858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 9DA833858D20 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714659976; cv=none; b=CHB/eEmVpZLSjZQx4bVOoLzaRcKfYF1vrTw4qm6ufe+impwdtoXC89Eeg27dng9I8+UsI3Vd8N//dHFM7w2KLX5bahh7HeyuV+qVfT6rEOaxHJfnL3KwoFLqe1a5rmNk2j3QugF/qdtVwPN10X3HaAiGcWfr50s5dA8Xl23gVmY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714659976; c=relaxed/simple; bh=e8CMB+ensS/vscPPU3VdVLsl92Oq2tatd9egxCT+kCo=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=lXrYDpKKZ1j/CfrqmT43NYhpzbSuMMiAkfQzQcq5ad9QBdOmolrNj6CJ119kUAJTFKfa0Nd+m4LlHHM0WsgGcHjaINrdwRQUWRGz8fJAk3vPpdorYg0ynzL3FEgno/ehiN/fBQxOtRRaZ9V/Gp63UWBcMjc2XfpDA5H9YNYvhkk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1714659973; bh=e8CMB+ensS/vscPPU3VdVLsl92Oq2tatd9egxCT+kCo=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=NT1Lz8NSfkfHYw8QnsKtuWvVyzaQAQ+PXxT45pPA33MptH6GzfR4zuLzcmjyBtb9W 59dPJi7+Hko+Xe8fTFq4+60QZq3JrggouynD26at//raRnRZ9Hsnwqxc3TjCzyOr5L fn50VL2Gvj2Wb8afBCRgfkoQoCX1wE5yf8oY3QOU= Received: from [172.16.0.192] (192-222-143-198.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.143.198]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D50D31E092; Thu, 2 May 2024 10:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50f7a906-bc7e-4197-88d2-b6c8201cc743@simark.ca> Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 10:26:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans To: Overseers mailing list , Jeff Law Cc: Richard Biener , Joseph Myers , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Jason Merrill , gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , binutils@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey References: <20240417232725.GC25080@gnu.wildebeest.org> <20240418173726.GD9069@redhat.com> <87v849qudy.fsf@tromey.com> <87wmooep76.fsf@tromey.com> <0347e05a-94c6-4ecc-aa8f-cc90358a813d@gmail.com> <0d0af1d9-21f8-4c60-ad4c-cd82c0c0cabb@redhat.com> <9580dbf5-5357-404c-b6f2-5e21fd369d3e@gmail.com> Content-Language: fr From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,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 5/2/24 2:47 AM, Richard Biener via Overseers wrote:> We'd only know for sure if we try. But then I'm almost 100% sure that > having to click in a GUI is slower than 'nrOK^X' in the text-mode mail UA > I am using for "quick" patch review. It might be comparable to the > review parts I do in the gmail UI or when I have to download attachments > and cut&paste parts into the reply. It might be also more convenient > for "queued" for review patches which just end up in New state in either > inbox. Speaking of my Gerrit experience. I don't think that it will ever be quite as fast and responsive as whatever terminal application you're using (because web app vs highly optimized native app). But the time saved in patch management, tracking down stuff, diffing patch versions, ease of downloading patches locally to try them you, CI integration, more than make up for it in terms of productivity, in my case. The particular case you describe is just one click in Gerrit. The current version of Gerrit has a "Code review +2" button on the top right, which is equivalent to an "OK" without further comments: https://i.imgur.com/UEz5xmM.png So, pretty quick too. If you want to add a general comment on the patch (a comment not bound to a specific line), typing `a` anywhere within a patch review brings you to the place where you can do that, and you can do `shift + enter` to post. In general, I think that Gerrit has a pretty good set of keyboard shortcuts to do most common operations: https://i.imgur.com/RrREsTt.png Not sure that you mean with the gmail UI and cut & paste part. I don't think you'd ever need to do something like that with Gerrit or similar review system. To put a comment on a line, you click on that line and type in the box. > But then would using gitlab or any similar service enforce the use of > pull requests / forks for each change done or can I just continue to > post patches and push them from the command-line for changes I > can approve myself? Like Ian said, with Gerrit, you can configure a repo such that you're still able to git push directly. If a patch review exists with the same Change-Id (noted as a git trailer in each commit) as a commit that gets directly pushed, that patch review gets automatically closed (marked as "Merged"). So you, as a maintainer with the proper rights, could for instance download a patch review I uploaded, fix some nits and git push directly. Gerrit will mark my patch review as Merged and the final version of the patch review will reflect whatever you pushed. Let's say you spot a typo in the code and want to push a trivial patch, you don't need to create a patch review on Gerrit, you just push directly (if the repo is configured to allow it). On the other hand, creating a patch review on Gerrit is not a big overhead, it's basically one "git push" to a magic remote. It prints you the URL, you can click on it, and you're there. Simon