From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B01C35280 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE4AD21721 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728893AbfJHQnX (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:43:23 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48922 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727876AbfJHQnX (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:43:23 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F287F30BBE64; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:43:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (dhcp-17-153.bos.redhat.com [10.18.17.153]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EB505C1D4; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:43:09 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Daniel Axtens , David Miller , sir@cmpwn.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: thoughts on a Merge Request based development workflow Message-ID: <20191008164309.mddbouqmbqipx2sx@redhat.com> References: <20190924182536.GC6041@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20191007.173329.2182256975398971437.davem@davemloft.net> <87zhicqhzg.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> <20191007211704.6b555bb1@oasis.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191007211704.6b555bb1@oasis.local.home> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.49]); Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:04PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:00:03 +1100 > Daniel Axtens wrote: > > > Non-email systems have an easier time of this: with gerrit (which I'm > > not a big fan of, but just take it as an example) you push things up to > > a git repository, and it requires a change-id. So you can track the base > > tree, dependencies, and patch revisions easily, because you build on a > > richer, more structured data source. > > I believe we all want a new system that can handle this, but still be > able to work with email. Patchwork requires to read all emails and > figure out what to do with it. This workflow doesn't need to do that. > But it should be able to send out emails on comments, and a reply to > one of those should easily be put back into the system. > > As for adding patches, we can push to a git tree or something that the > tool could read. It's much easier to know what to do with a branch then > email. A rebase could be a new version of the series (and we should > probably archive the original version). Thanks for the thoughts. Your thoughts here and your bugzilla example make sense and ties into some of the work we are experimenting with, with a small group at Red Hat. My only sticky point is the initial patch submission. Pushing to a forge like github, gerrit, or gitlab makes a ton of sense like you said above. But what do we do with folks who still email patches initially (instead of the git-push)? What should be the expectations there? Leverage patchwork to create a 'git push'? Reject the patchset? Something else? Curious. Thanks! Cheers, Don