From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sam.airs.com (sam.airs.com [64.13.145.90]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAF123858CDA for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:07:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EAF123858CDA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=airs.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=airs.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org EAF123858CDA Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=64.13.145.90 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713845238; cv=none; b=ongvwGcdzSU+LpZWXjXRVsagQBu34r9AsW3ltzhxTk7EHfAtMXUx2qLF0fa1xgD3bEnAlr6nI2JkrcR4bZDukAdAgJQ0zRXjTiQd/NQtOJhmgquuWhYz0Wf5TWZHU3K+e1cHqnNgEgLLFh4qKJcKKOcxm5+CmyTpV7QN/PgYTd0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1713845238; c=relaxed/simple; bh=do4dxPHE7+3AArHX4lE91miLAvZfNlqQp0ylKSGolBs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=EcQSt9ydq65GyfmnwkRFAPZAHBZQywU3LQw+q4t0dSvV64BCfjDRxdwMrU+CLEbAnZfKvkBTdMQrwXh5QcB3hkgFBh9REOm60brK7sQ1HUposwzGQL5N/pGuh4/G9XPu79ucw5t6WTidxUUS2C7aFH1UNKoWAqa0+NUR2rvc08U= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: (qmail 11410 invoked by uid 10); 23 Apr 2024 04:07:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 1244861 invoked by uid 1001); 23 Apr 2024 04:06:44 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: jason@redhat.com, tom@tromey.com, josmyers@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, mark@klomp.org, binutils@sourceware.org, overseers@sourceware.org From: Ian Lance Taylor To: Tom Tromey via Overseers Cc: Jason Merrill , Tom Tromey , Joseph Myers , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans References: <20240417232725.GC25080@gnu.wildebeest.org> <20240418173726.GD9069@redhat.com> <87v849qudy.fsf@tromey.com> <87wmooep76.fsf@tromey.com> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:06:44 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87wmooep76.fsf@tromey.com> (Tom Tromey via Overseers's message of "Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:24:29 -0600") Message-ID: <86y194pvsb.fsf@pew.airs.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,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: Tom Tromey via Overseers writes: > 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. Current Gerrit e-mails are pretty nice, with a nice diff of the change. And patches can be submitted entirely via git, which is not the same as today but should be acceptable for almost all contributors. What doesn't work in Gerrit, as far as I know, is a pure e-mail based workflow for maintainers. To approve a patch, maintainers have to go to a web site and click a button, or they have to run a command line tool ("ssh gerrit review"). > 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. You can lose patches in Gerrit quite easily, but at least there is a dashboard showing all the ones you lost. I'm definitely a Gerrit fan. Ian