From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 490C8ED9 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:07:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com (mail-io0-f194.google.com [209.85.223.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E8BC71C for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:07:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f194.google.com with SMTP id y10-v6so1068821ioa.10 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:07:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180910154738.GA3712@chatter> References: <1536592110.4035.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20180910153806.GR16300@sasha-vm> <20180910154738.GA3712@chatter> From: Daniel Vetter Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:07:35 +0200 Message-ID: To: Sasha Levin , Linus Torvalds , James Bottomley , ksummit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] community management/subsystem governance List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 03:38:07PM +0000, Sasha Levin via Ksummit-discuss > wrote: >> >> Yes, some maintainers started adding links to lkml archives, but those >> are very inconsistent and often just point to the patch submission >> rather than relevant discussions. >> >> I'm not sure what's a good way to solve this, but I'd really like to >> stop losing this valuable information as a result of the current >> process. > > > This is partly the goal behind cregit: > > https://cregit.linuxsources.org/ > > The plan is that the next version of cregit will become an official > kernel.org resource some time mid-next year, and will aggregate as much > information about the kernel code as it can from various places, including > patchwork. Assuming we do indeed switch some parts of the drm process over to gitlab (very big assumption here), whom would we need to chat with to do that? Atm what we're doing with patchwork is automatically add a Link: with the https:// patchwork url for that patch. Which then has links to the overall series, with CI results and discussions and all that. Plan for gitlab is to do something similar, if we start using it for real for anything. Would that be good enough? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch