archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Konstantin Ryabitsev <>
To: Dan Williams <>
Subject: Re: b4 am support for partial series updates?
Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 18:52:44 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210516225244.ye7ty3pq5fzhpqzl@nitro.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 03:50:21PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> I recently had someone grumble at me about my requirement that they
> repost a full series just so "b4 am" could autograb the full set even
> though only a handful of patches changed.
> As an experiment I tried replying to a patch to update and marked it
> v5, but b4 am reports:
> # b4 am
> ...
> Writing ./v5_20210514_dan_j_williams_cxl_acpi_introduce_acpi0017_driver_and_cxl_root.mbx
>   ERROR: missing [1/8]!
>   ERROR: missing [2/8]!
>   ERROR: missing [3/8]!
>   ERROR: missing [4/8]!
>   [PATCH v5 5/8] cxl/acpi: Introduce ACPI0017 driver and cxl_root
>   ERROR: missing [6/8]!
>   ERROR: missing [7/8]!
>   ERROR: missing [8/8]!
> ...which is helpful if v5 was partially sent, but not if all the other
> patches don't require updates. This feels like a "WANTVER+" option
> that means "grab latest, but fall back to vX" for missing patches. Has
> this come up before?
> What format would help b4 detect this situation? By default tooling
> would make the prefix be [PATCH], I manually made that [PATCH v5 5/8]
> and forced the in-reply-to message-id to the v4 version.
> I'm nearing the point where handling this manually is more painful
> than figuring out a b4 patch, but please consider this for the b4
> feature backlog in the meantime.

I was generally against handling such situations in the past because
they introduced ambiguity. E.g. consider this two-patch series:

[PATCH v2 1/2] First patch
\- [PATCH v3 1/2] First patch
[PATCH v2 2/2] Second patch

It's unclear here what happened:

- is it a single-patch reroll as you describe above?
- or is it a full reroll and [PATCH v3 2/2] simply got lost en route?

However, we are probably safe to treat it as a partial patch reroll if
the following conditions are true:

1. The series has a cover letter
2. Individual patch rerolls are sent as follow-ups to exact same patch
X/N (e.g. [PATCH v3 3/5] is sent as a follow-up to [PATCH v2 3/5].

Let me brainstorm about this on Monday and I'll share what I came up
with once I have something to show.

Best regards,

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-16 22:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-14 22:50 Dan Williams
2021-05-16 22:52 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev [this message]
2021-05-17 16:13 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-05-17 17:11   ` Dan Williams

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210516225244.ye7ty3pq5fzhpqzl@nitro.local \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: b4 am support for partial series updates?' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
on how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox