From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A554D3858D3C; Wed, 1 May 2024 20:20:09 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A554D3858D3C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A554D3858D3C Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=45.83.234.184 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714594811; cv=none; b=I8elOXSytrPE/bAG7DbsbLRonIMkcg4cVvuFabFwdg/DRKM0yKS2E4Na57j0m7SP2W3BxNZDjzZ9bzTGfkfjbXKPdMAB4hB209D50R9SS+/WjUH7dyLCEPh7bqqdfVDPIcjUOZz8q6vy1QaivxRRtT8gO7O63SO/lOxt42K2HkI= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714594811; c=relaxed/simple; bh=q3dCnVGuuju6mg1/mncySEhyvQ63vAZ/ZhosekBhYHs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=FjxHTpcsCJvDXC9uxidpYDBnnBxL2domHK7iyyN2p9M6iUb3TjC5E7tr8jI62dg4J0wTd5jDnBu0lIYrLirFmeXdwEhJm9A+sNRaznZmKxnDKLnbsh+lSrPs5Z/Dj1KvPXFeWzGi+DaMDGM9FxymHzzq2/71QH7WmvGiVm5n6PA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 75A413000589; Wed, 1 May 2024 22:20:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 22:20:08 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Jeff Law , Tom Tromey , Jason Merrill , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Overseers mailing list , Joseph Myers , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans Message-ID: <20240501202008.GA6469@gnu.wildebeest.org> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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: Hi Jonathan, On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 08:38:26PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2024 at 20:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote: > > We're currently using patchwork to track patches tagged with RISC-V. We > > don't do much review with patchwork. In that model patchwork ultimately > > just adds overhead as I'm constantly trying to figure out what patches > > have been integrated vs what are still outstanding. > > If patches sent by email exactly match what's committed, then the > update_gcc_pw.sh script that I run will correctly update patchwork to > say they're committed. I tend to only bother running that once a week, > because it misses so many and so is of limited use. If we are now > supposed to send generated files in the patches, and we discourage > people from committing something close-but-not-identical to what they > sent by email, then the script will do a better job of updating > patchwork, and then we should look at running it automatically (not > just when I think to run it manually). See also https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30997 We really should automate this. There are several people running scripts by hand. The easiest would be to simply run it from a git hook. patchwork comes with a simple script that just calculates the hash and pings patchwork, which can then mark the patch associated with that hash as committed. If people really believe calculating a hash is too much work from a git hook then we can also simply run it from builder.sourceware.org. We already run a builder for each commit anyway. It would just be one extra build step checking the commit against patchwork. Cheers, Mark