From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42177 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PiVhU-0005NQ-6g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:32:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PiVhS-0002ki-AK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:32:04 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:58634) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PiVhS-0002kJ-2g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:32:02 -0500 Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p0RHICSx015358 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:18:12 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p0RHW0WQ074614 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:32:00 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p0RHVw8F019711 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:31:59 -0700 Message-ID: <4D41ABFF.7050606@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:31:43 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Fwd: Proposal: Improving patch tracking and review using Rietveld References: <4D4124F2.7060407@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <4D4124F2.7060407@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-devel On 01/27/2011 01:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Forwarding this from the GCC mailing list. Since patchwork isn't more > than a mail archive the way it's implemented in QEMU, this may be a > more interesting possibility. Patchwork is a nice tool but I found a few issues with it that really deterred me from using it: 1) it's all or nothing in terms of whether maintainers use it. if everyone isn't on top of keeping it clean, you end up with a terrible backlog 2) it doesn't understand patches series. A 20 patch series gets applied all at once, yet you have to update status for each patch. That's annoying. 3) it doesn't understand new revisions of the same patch/series. This is really a deal breaker. Having to go and update the status particularly when you have patch series that see multiple revs in 24 hours creates an awful lot of work > Paolo > >> At Google we use a code review tool which was open sourced a couple of >> years ago: Rietveld >> (http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/rietveld.html). >> >> The best way of thinking about it is "bugzilla for patches". The >> system creates an entry for every patch submitted, provides a web tool >> for manipulating the patch (comments, different views of the diff, >> highlighting, etc) and it also has an email gateway. >> >> We have discussed patch tracking mechanisms in the past, and none so >> far has taken hold. The reason why I like Rietveld is that it doesn't >> really matter whether we all switch to using it at once: >> >> 1- Rietveld always send the patch sent to it to gcc-patches@ (provided >> the submitter added gcc-patches to the CC list). >> 2- The whole trail of discussion on the patch also get sent to >> gcc-patches and everyone else is CC'd in it. >> 3- Reviewers do not need to use the web tool to reply to the patch. >> One can simply respond to the e-mail, and it will get added to the >> patch discussion trail. >> >> So, for people who do not want to use the tool, Rietveld will not get >> in the way. They can simply respond to the patch as usual, and as >> long as they keep the rietveld email address in the CC list, the patch >> trail will be updated automatically. >> >> At Google we will start using Rietveld to send patches. The only >> difference folks will notice is that Rietveld-generated email has some >> extra text. >> >> I have created a wiki page that explains the basics of using Rietveld >> (thanks Jeffrey for the instructions): >> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/rietveld Interesting. This seems to have nice characteristics compared to patchworks. Regards, Anthony Liguori >> Once again, I'd like to underscore the fact that if a patch submitter >> chooses to use Rietveld for tracking their patches, this should not >> affect in any way the traditional mail-based review. All I ask is >> that reviewers maintain the CC and Subject line intact in order to not >> confuse the tool. >> >> Jeffrey, would you mind looking over the instructions I've written to >> make sure they're correct? >> >> Richard, this is the tool I mentioned in today's chat. >> >> >> Thanks. Diego. > >