* New patchwork state: Invalid
@ 2022-09-19 21:49 Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-09-20 10:33 ` Carlos O'Donell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Siddhesh Poyarekar @ 2022-09-19 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GNU C Library
Hi,
Adhemerval, Florian and I noticed a couple of manpage patches during
review that managed to apply to the glibc tree because they only added
new files and as a result, didn't fail CI. I've added a new terminal
state 'Invalid' to patchwork to mark such patches from now on. It
should be used for any patches that don't belong to glibc, e.g. because
they've been cross-posted.
This is now separate from the 'Fails to apply' state, which was
previously overloaded to indicate non-glibc patches.
Thanks,
Sid
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: New patchwork state: Invalid
2022-09-19 21:49 New patchwork state: Invalid Siddhesh Poyarekar
@ 2022-09-20 10:33 ` Carlos O'Donell
2022-09-20 12:08 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2022-09-20 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar; +Cc: GNU C Library
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 05:49:30PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> Adhemerval, Florian and I noticed a couple of manpage patches during review
> that managed to apply to the glibc tree because they only added new files
> and as a result, didn't fail CI. I've added a new terminal state 'Invalid'
> to patchwork to mark such patches from now on. It should be used for any
> patches that don't belong to glibc, e.g. because they've been cross-posted.
I noticed this too! I asked DJ aobut his and he said it was common.
I'm OK with "Invalid" but I would rather go with "Not applicable"
because the patch is *valid* but not applicable. Total bikeshed.
> This is now separate from the 'Fails to apply' state, which was previously
> overloaded to indicate non-glibc patches.
Our maxim should be: As few states as possible.
My opinion is that we should not have "Fails to apply."
Instead the state should always be "Failed CI."
Applying a patch is a lower level operation that is related to
pre-commit CI.
The flow could be like this:
- A patchwork bot attempts to re-apply the patch, and if it fails it
creates a "fail" entry in the CI which reads "Rebase bot failed".
- A patchwork bot notices the fail and marks the patch or whole
series as "Failed CI"
My suggestion is as follows:
- Remove "Fails to apply." from the workflow. As few states as possible
should be our goal.
- Suggest renaming "Invalid" to "Not applicable" only because it sounds
kinder (complete bikeshed).
Cheers,
Carlos.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: New patchwork state: Invalid
2022-09-20 10:33 ` Carlos O'Donell
@ 2022-09-20 12:08 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Siddhesh Poyarekar @ 2022-09-20 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carlos O'Donell; +Cc: GNU C Library
On 2022-09-20 06:33, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 05:49:30PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> Adhemerval, Florian and I noticed a couple of manpage patches during review
>> that managed to apply to the glibc tree because they only added new files
>> and as a result, didn't fail CI. I've added a new terminal state 'Invalid'
>> to patchwork to mark such patches from now on. It should be used for any
>> patches that don't belong to glibc, e.g. because they've been cross-posted.
>
> I noticed this too! I asked DJ aobut his and he said it was common.
>
> I'm OK with "Invalid" but I would rather go with "Not applicable"
> because the patch is *valid* but not applicable. Total bikeshed.
>
>> This is now separate from the 'Fails to apply' state, which was previously
>> overloaded to indicate non-glibc patches.
>
> Our maxim should be: As few states as possible.
>
> My opinion is that we should not have "Fails to apply."
>
> Instead the state should always be "Failed CI."
>
> Applying a patch is a lower level operation that is related to
> pre-commit CI.
>
> The flow could be like this:
> - A patchwork bot attempts to re-apply the patch, and if it fails it
> creates a "fail" entry in the CI which reads "Rebase bot failed".
> - A patchwork bot notices the fail and marks the patch or whole
> series as "Failed CI"
>
> My suggestion is as follows:
>
> - Remove "Fails to apply." from the workflow. As few states as possible
> should be our goal.
> - Suggest renaming "Invalid" to "Not applicable" only because it sounds
> kinder (complete bikeshed).
lol, so we had a "Not applicable" before, which indicated what I added
as "Invalid". This is because you and I changed "Not applicable" to
"Fails to apply" a couple of weeks ago because I had misremembered "Not
applicable" as being "Does not apply" ;)
I'm fine with reinstating what we had before (i.e. "Not applicable") and
merge "Fails to apply" with "Fails CI". I'll make that change in the
wiki and patchwork today.
Sid
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-20 12:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-09-19 21:49 New patchwork state: Invalid Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-09-20 10:33 ` Carlos O'Donell
2022-09-20 12:08 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).