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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 78EF3ECE588 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4902086A for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=cmpwn.com header.i=@cmpwn.com header.b="dE6xo6Vy" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729863AbfJOQe7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:34:59 -0400 Received: from mail.cmpwn.com ([45.56.77.53]:60328 "EHLO mail.cmpwn.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728864AbfJOQe6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:34:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=cmpwn.com; s=cmpwn; t=1571157298; bh=a4FcV2gv7A7eQoDsIUeYIc8ivUXPf0jTlf/JNEGYsP4=; h=In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Subject:From:To; b=dE6xo6VyGBc6U0biJ/nV2Ycq8Gws04n+NB8XqOtPpZ9/R/RtVtuxrovihbZyvHf9V emErjbM7Thq68DzOk/LG8ijZb2GKyQ9XxIyH/qg1sawY4kHBUVTQyst6PxTQWiZ1GL b57nhqJrjEomv1Kjzc5g+EtUvfwwQ9T242J+SSMw= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 In-Reply-To: <20191015163241.GI4875@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:34:57 -0400 Cc: "Eric Wong" , "Greg KH" , , Subject: Re: RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch From: "Drew DeVault" To: "Laurent Pinchart" , "Konstantin Ryabitsev" Message-Id: Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Tue Oct 15, 2019 at 7:32 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > I certainly wouldn't recommend a solution based on a proprietary > closed-source stack :-) But as we're talking about performing new > development for patchwork, I wanted to point out that we could also > consider a different technical approach that would involve new > development for a different open-source project. For instance, is the > above idea something that could be developed on top of gitolite ? Or > possibly even as a tiny standalone git server ? Some of the work I'm doing with code review on sourcehut can be generalized, to support writing up arbitrary mailing lists with arbitrary review tools with a bidirectional workflow. I intend to make a reality of this for at least lists.sr.ht <-> gitlab and lists.sr.ht <-> github, so that patchsets and the resulting discussion gets turned into git{hub,lab} code reviews, and vise versa. I think it's possible to make a system which presents both sides with an experience that is idiomatic for each context, so that you can't really tell whose using which tool because they're both speaking each other's conventional language.