[Mesa-dev] Is it time to stop using the mailing list for patch review?

[Nathan Kidd]

On 2019-12-10 7:10 p.m., Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Quoting Zebediah Figura (2019-12-10 10:58:45)
> > On 12/10/19 12:21 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:07 PM Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
> > > > I think its time we discussed whether we're going to continue to do patch review
> > > > on the mailing list, or if it it should all go through gitlab. I think we should
> > > > stop using the mailing list, here are some reasons:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Most development is happening on gitlab at this point, patches on the mailing
> > > >    list are often overlooked
> > > > 2) The mailing list bypasses CI which potentially breaks the build
> > >
> > > What concrete change would you propose?
> >
> > Removing mention of the mailing list from documentation would be nice.
> > Also, currently the README implies that the mailing list is not only
> > acceptable but preferred: "Note that Mesa uses email mailing-lists for
> > patches submission, review and discussions."
> 
> I think updating README type docs is sufficient and I think it's
> probably time we did that.  

As a recent drive-by patch submitter, updating the web page and other
docs to say "use GitLab" would have been sufficient for me.  As they are
now it wasn't clear which way is preferred, so I defaulted to using
mesa-dev@ only to find that the dev focus seems to be in gitlab.fd.o and
if it wasn't for Roland watching the mailing list my patch seemed likely
to get missed.

I also went through the work of subscribing to mesa-stable@ to nominate
there, but again it feels like I missed the de-facto channel for
suggesting a stable backport patch.   Hint hint [1]. :)

GitLab would have been preferred all round.

-Nathan

[1] llvmpipe: Check thread creation errors
9a80b7fd8f282d4b448f826ff88c8770c079fb72

Prevents a SEGV in situations where thread creation is restricted
(cgroups, ulimit -u, /proc/sys/kernel/threads-max, etc.)