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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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 A4870C10F14 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:39:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A1C21721 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:39:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726811AbfJHRjI (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2019 13:39:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3252 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726057AbfJHRjH (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Oct 2019 13:39:07 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31F1718CB8E3; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:39:07 +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 6D244600CE; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:39:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 13:39:02 -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: <20191008173902.jbkzrqrwg43szgyz@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> <20191008164309.mddbouqmbqipx2sx@redhat.com> <20191008131730.4da4c9c5@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191008131730.4da4c9c5@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.63]); Tue, 08 Oct 2019 17:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 01:17:30PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:43:09 -0400 > Don Zickus wrote: > > > 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. > > I think we are not just talking about reusing patchwork (unless that > becomes the starting point). But let's use patchwork as a starting > point for my thoughts about this. One would email the mailing list, and > also Cc a "listener" (like patchwork). Note, the one thing I dislike > about patchwork is that it requires to read a list. I rather have it > just be something that gets Cc'd to trigger it. > > Anyway, when this "listener" gets an email, it goes into the system. > Now the maintainer can get an email from this system, or read the > system directly from a web browser or whatever client they choose. They > reply to the system, and this goes to the original submitter via email > (with links to how to use the system directly). The submitter, can then > use the system to send a v2, and ever perhaps reply to it via email with > some key word that will tell the system it is v2, or a comment. > > I think we need to standardize on keywords to trigger the system > properly, if we are to use email (its up to the email user to get those > keywords right), or they can go directly to the system interface (be it > a web browser, or whatever), and then they don't need to worry about > keywords as the system would handle that directly. > > Does this make sense? It mostly does. Though I don't think it describes how a patch series would work as that would be a collection of 'cc's to the listener. Now the listener has to organize that into a proper thread order (after determining the whole thread arrived). Unless I misunderstood the idea. Regardless, I think what you wrote re-enforces the idea that emailing a patch series (and their vX followups) is messy for the maintainer and a more evolved idea is to let a forge take git-push as input. But it seems a stop-gap like patchwork (which has logic to handle a patch series) would be still be needed until something like git-push became the norm (if possible)? Cheers, Don