From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3F43858D3C; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:30:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 8A3F43858D3C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 8A3F43858D3C Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713864649; cv=none; b=pBImS5xzm6S60U5TlOfr29a6GJbBnhV/pOjyIXeBreOEHOkjLJfQJVV70ylS/07winGbcL8bSnNX12DVXbUvyYhMdbWcd23trADd3MA+svhf9srf7OkKwxrFmQ7A43J2h07MPz3UogJU014gURBACbIpv1nJjCzhZuTGwc88Rks= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713864649; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0sqdcgZkjKzwNDHksxKVyJyhvtFZ+ojZzhycE64tTX0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=xaZmHoumSHrZ0anj5qMuGWGpe2C8FJEII8gg9IiLyxpAfd4yfDxpReO83LY71AdkyO3qmNGRQeivEiAstkJPKeq0MX5VP/4+lMIwUzNgoBywSAPcDOJQX6/Ute3cyoTktfp27VXTMX6jauxm+kpfiLV0CBPDeQx7cYSV7ghRva0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5CB339; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.2.78.64] (e120077-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.78.64]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9A873F64C; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5ff84c07-4b48-495d-ae9f-816f472d712a@arm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:30:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans To: Tom Tromey , Jason Merrill Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Overseers mailing list , Mark Wielaard , Joseph Myers , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20240417232725.GC25080@gnu.wildebeest.org> <20240418173726.GD9069@redhat.com> <87v849qudy.fsf@tromey.com> <87wmooep76.fsf@tromey.com> From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <87wmooep76.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3491.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_NONE,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no 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 23/04/2024 04:24, Tom Tromey wrote: > Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried > Jason> unsuccessfully. > > We tried it and gdb and then abandoned it. We tried to integrate it > into the traditional gdb development style, having it send email to > gdb-patches. I found these somewhat hard to read and in the end we > agreed not to use it. > > I've come around again to thinking we should probably abandon email > instead. For me the main benefit is that gerrit has patch tracking, > unlike our current system, where losing patches is fairly routine. > > Jason> I think this is a common pattern in GCC at least: someone has an > Jason> idea for a workflow improvement, and gets it working, but it > Jason> isn't widely adopted. > > It essentially has to be mandated, IMO. > > For GCC this seems somewhat harder since the community is larger, so > there's more people to convince. > > Tom I've been forced to use gerrit occasionally. I hate it. No, I LOATHE it. The UI is anything but intuitive with features hidden behind unobvious selections. IMO It's not a tool for a casual developer, which makes it a bad introduction to developing software. R.