Re: Patchwork + automated checking and testing of patches

[Christopher Baines]

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello!
>
> Christopher Baines <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Back when we tried, it had a couple of shortcomings:
>>>
>>>   1. It would not automatically detect which patches have been merged;
>>>
>>>   2. It would not present patch series correctly.
>>>
>>> From what you write it looks like #1 has been fixed, but the web
>>> interface suggests that #2 isn’t quite fixed yet, is that correct?
>>
>> On the detecting merged patches, that's definately working for some
>> patches though. I don't fully understand what criteria it's using
>> though, as it's comparing the commits that come through to the master
>> branch, and I bet it's possible to confuse it a bit by tweaking patches
>> before pushing them.
>>
>> Regarding patch series, I don't know much about the specifics of this,
>> and I don't know much about Patchwork, but just comparing a few patches
>> on the older version [1], and the newer version [2], it looks like it's
>> better. Take this patch [3], it's part of a series, but you can't
>> tell. However, with this patch [4], you can see the series and related
>> patches towards the top of the page, and also a link to download the
>> whole series as an mbox. How does this look to you?
>
> It looks better than the old Patchwork version, but I think
> <https://patchwork.cbaines.net/project/guix-patches/list/> still leaves
> a bit to be desired.  For instance, it shows every message, even for
> series.
>
> At this point I find <https://issues.guix.info/search?query=is%3Aopen>
> clearer and less cluttered, though it needs some improvements (e.g.,
> most-recent-first sorting, listing all the open issues, etc.), which I
> think should be relatively easy to do.  Also, it is directly linked to
> Debbugs and its notion of issues and associated properties (bug number,
> owner, status, tags, etc.), which is good IMO.
>
> WDYT?

So, I was trying to work out how to update a series of patches, and
asked on the Patchwork mailing list [1], and discovered there's actually
another codebase with different features [2]. This Patchwork-FDO fork
does have a page that just displays series [3].

1: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/patchwork/2018-November/005674.html
2: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/patchwork-fdo/patchwork-fdo/
3: 
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/series/?ordering=-last_updated

In terms of patch tracking, I'm thinking on Patchwork and Debbugs
independently, while I think it would be possible to integrate the two,
Patchwork has the tracking capabilities of Debbugs, so if Patchwork ever
becomes useful for automated testing of patches, it would probably
remove the need to use Debbugs to track patches (not actual bugs and
issues).

Anyway, I think the next thing to try and do is get something
(Patchwork, Patchwork-FDO, Debbugs/issues.guix.info) triggering tests
for patches. I still need to compare the two Patchwork codebases to see
if they differ in this respect.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature