[Piglit] Weekly 10 Picks from Patchwork for review and friendly reminder to clean out your old patches

[Timothy Arceri]

On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 16:18 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Jose Fonseca <jfonseca at vmware.com> wrote:
> > On 19/06/15 20:45, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Jose Fonseca <jfonseca at vmware.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 19/06/15 13:32, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately since its introduction patchwork hasn't seen a lot of love
> >>>> in the Piglit and Mesa projects so I thought I'd try something out to
> >>>> bring it out of the shadows and into the limelight.
> >>>>
> >>>> The idea is simple we have many useful but long forgotten patches
> >>>> sitting on the mailing list that would serve us much better sitting in
> >>>> the git repo, so once a week I (or anyone else that wants to help out)
> >>>> would pick 10 seemingly random older patches that could do with a
> >>>> review/update/etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm hoping this will help with both clearing out the backlog of patches
> >>>> and getting people thinking about patchwork.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm interested in feedback on what people think about this idea.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Patchwork seems to fail to recognize submited patches.  Eg. one of my
> >>> patches is https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/51379/ but it has been
> >>> commited on
> >>>
> >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/piglit/commit/?id=540972b46e51ee1d4acbb3757b731a066e2b6ba5
> >>>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's very strict about matching patches. The diff has to be identical.
> >> Which it often isn't if you made minor changes, or rebased, or
> >> whatever.
> >
> >
> > Without a bit of fuzzy matching I'm afraid this looks a bit hopeless to me:
> >
> > I believe the bulk of the patches are committed, and only a few is
> > forgotten.  Looking at the patchwork backlog it's fair to say a large
> > portion of those committed don't get detected due to small changes.  So the
> > end result is that developers have to click through and babysit the bulk of
> > their changes in patchwork, so that the few truly forgotten patches get to
> > stand out?
> >
> > I don't think this will ever going to work.  There's no incentive in the
> > system for the most prolific developers to spend so much of their time, for
> > the sake of the occasional contributor.  The patchwork system seems bound to
> > echo what happens on the mailing list: their patches get to be lost twice...
> >
> >
> > There 's another concern -- one can only change the status of our own
> > patches.  So if one commits on behalf of somebody else, and that patch
> > doesn't get recognized, one needs to get that other person to register and
> > click through patchwork?
> 
> In order for patchwork to at all be useful you have to have admin
> access on patchwork. I believe it's been handed out to anyone who's
> asked. This gives you the ability to bulk-modify stuff too. At least
> for the mesa patchwork, I've kept my commits relatively accurate wrt
> reality. (I don't do the "superseded" thing though... I just archive.)

Yeah I don't really know what the correct thing to do is. I've been
doing accepted for patches committed with small changes and superseded
for patches with new revisions. Really anything that makes it go away is
probably good.