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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 D1919C4CEC9 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 21:58:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA032216C8 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 21:58:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726916AbfIQV6e (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:58:34 -0400 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.pl ([79.96.170.134]:51236 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726548AbfIQV6e (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:58:34 -0400 Received: from 79.184.255.25.ipv4.supernova.orange.pl (79.184.255.25) (HELO kreacher.localnet) by serwer1319399.home.pl (79.96.170.134) with SMTP (IdeaSmtpServer 0.83.292) id 6f86e16ca8b7f566; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 23:58:31 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Jani Nikula Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Bjorn Helgaas , Jiri Kosina , Konstantin Ryabitsev Subject: Re: Kernel development collaboration platform wish list Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 23:58:30 +0200 Message-ID: <2608348.dCUkSTB59S@kreacher> In-Reply-To: <875zlwzbxv.fsf@intel.com> References: <1811089.yxvLMk49Ug@kreacher> <875zlwzbxv.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Friday, September 13, 2019 1:13:16 PM CEST Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 13 Sep 2019, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > During the Maintainers Summit session yesterday I started to create a wish list > > for the new kernel development collaboration platform to be created (and to > > replace the multiple pieces of tooling in use today). I also asked Bjorn, > > Jiri, Greg and Shuah for input and here's the reslut: > > > > 1. Compatible with e-mail > > > > (a) E-mail send to it stored and included automatically; appears as part of > > the normal flow. > > > > (b) Automatic e-mail responses > > If e-mail is sent to it, the sender will get all responses to it in the > > given thread by e-mail. > > > > 2. History tracking > > > > (a) Should be able to track revisions of a given patch series (or patch) down > > to the initial submission. > > > > 3. Integration with git > > > > (a) Should be able to create git commits from patches (or patch series) > > tracked by it if pointed to a git branch (either locally or remotely). > > As I wrote in [1], I think git send-email and am are a lossy method of > transmission, and reliably regenerating commits from patches, with the > right baselines, as well as tracking various patch and patch series > versions, is very difficult. Assuming that git is used to generate patches in the first place. Some people use different methods, like quilt, however. > I think we should have a git push based mechanism to contribute, which > would in turn send the patches to the right lists and maintainers for > review. Alternatively, one could point the change submission mechanism to a git branch exposed from somewhere and a tree to merge it on top of. > Maintainers could, at their choosing, still use the emailed > patches (which would all be sent using the same pipeline, without the > typical issues) and their exact existing workflows, or switch to using > the commits from a branch directly. > > There are more contributors than maintainers by several orders of > magnitude. It would make the maintainers' lives so much easier if the > patches came in the same way, every time. I guess you mean a consistent view of all patches regardless of the source. If so, then I agree, that should be one of the goals. > When we have technical issues > with patches, as maintainers, the problems rarely are in the receiving > end. IMO solving *all* the other items in this email would become much > easier if had this first. > > BR, > Jani. > > > [1] http://lore.kernel.org/r/87lfv3w3v6.fsf@intel.com > > > > > > (b) Link tags pointing back to it should be added automatically to git > > commits created from patches tracked by it. > > > > 4. Distributed > > > > (a) Support for running offline. > > > > (b) Support for batch updates. > > > > (c) CL-frendly. > > > > 5. Patchwork-like features > > > > (a) Delegation support. > > > > (b) Support for bundles and patch series manipulation. > > > > (c) Smart mbox (download all selected patches). > > > > 6. Easy to set up (especially for local installations) > > > > 7. Bug tracking support > > > > I guess there are more items to be added to this list, so please extend it if > > you have any ideas and we'll see where this goes. :-) > > > > Cheers, > > Rafael > > > > > > > > > >