Re: Monday Patch Queue Review update (2023-04-03)

[Sergey Bugaev <bugaevc@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:48 PM Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> Your patches:
>
> (a) Made it to the mailing list.
>
> (b) Made it into Patchwork (which we use for patch tracking)
>
> (c) Were reviewed as part of the weekly patch queue review.
>
>     - We look over patches in the meeting to see if we can help
>       move them forward.
>
> (d) Did not get assigned any specific reviewer to review them.
>
>     - This happens for any number of reasons e.g. lack of a person
>       who feels qualified to review a subsystem or machine,
>       lack of hardware to test, etc.

Thanks for the explanation!

> The outcome of the meeting was that we didn't find a way to help
> move your patches forward, sorry for that.

Ah, well, based on my previous experience, we just have to patiently
wait for Samuel to find some time to review the patches :)

> Your personal queue is here:
>
> https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/?submitter=35358
>
> Please have look over the queue to see if some of those patches have
> been committed or could have their state updated.

Cool -- but I see that Patchwork gets confused by my somewhat liberal
use of patch series formatting:

* "[v2] hurd: Add expected abilist files for x86_64" supersedes
  "[RFC,34/34] hurd: Add expected abilist files for x86_64", so the
  latter should have State = Superseded, and the former State = RFC

* The same goes for "[v2] hurd: Implement sigreturn for x86_64" and
  "[RFC,32/34] hurd: Implement sigreturn for x86_64"

* Ditto for the "Alignment-respecting x86_64 trampoline.c"
  mini-series, which collectively supersedes
  "[RFC,18/34] hurd: Port trampoline.c to x86_64"

(but it did grok that [PATCH v2 18.0/34] means a cover letter! unless
that was done manually)

Is there anything I should do differently when sending a replacement
for a patch (but not a v2 of the whole series) to make it easier for
Patchwork to understand what's going on?

Sergey