[Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

[Frediano Ziglio]

> 
> Hi
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > > On 26 Jul 2017, at 11:23, Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau at redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> Now, any objection to
> > >> 
> > >> 1. Recommending that we use git URLs in patches?
> > > 
> > > If that may help, but as Christophe said, this may be overkill for small
> > > series. Let's not make it a rule.
> > > 
> > >> 2. Having a shared location for branches under review?
> > > 
> > > This is really contrary to the distributed nature of git.
> > 
> > If that was true, why would the inventor of git, Linus Torvalds, use a
> > public
> > shared place like kernel.org?
> > 
> > Git gives you the freedom to have multiple repos and sync them easily. It
> > does not place a restriction that you can’t have a shared one for a team.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Add a remote remote repo if you are interested by tracking someone else
> > > work, it works just as well.
> > 
> > No, it does not. It means you need to git fetch multiple places. It’s
> > complicated enough that there are 17 repositories in the spice project. For
> > one of them I have 12 remotes already. That does not scale well.
> > 
> 
> git remote add/update, it scales fine..
> 
> > > 
> > > Imho, we could benefit using a system tracking patch series state from
> > > the
> > > mailing list, such as patchew. But it would probably need some work to
> > > fit
> > > Spice needs.
> > 
> > We would benefit from that, yes. But that’s another issue entirely.
> 
> If the issue is about tracking patch series state, then it's not not entirely
> different.
> 

The "not not" is not clear. What the advantage in regards of patch tracking
compared to patchwork?

Frediano