[PATCH wayland 1/1] contributing: use Gitlab merge request workflow

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Pekka,

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 13:42, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The experience from Weston shows that the Gitlab merge request based workflow
> works really well. Recently there have also been issues with the mailing list
> that have made the email based workflow more painful than it used to be. Those
> issues might have been temporary or occasional, but they probably are only
> going to increase.
>
> The MR workflow is different, it has its issues
> (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/freedesktop/freedesktop/issues/74) and we
> likely lose the explicit Reviewed-by etc. tags from commit messages, but it is
> also much easier to work with: no more whitespace damaged patches, lost email,
> setting up git-send-email; we gain automated CI before any human reviewer even
> looks at anything, and people can jump in to an ongoing discussion even if they
> weren't subscribed before.

Yes, I totally agree. It's been night and day since we switched Weston
over. We seem to do a much better job of not letting MRs fall between
the cracks, we're getting MRs from contributors we didn't previously
see. As a reviewer, just being able to track the discussions over the
various iterations of the patch without having to read the whole mail
thread over again and mentally keep track of what has and hasn't been
fixed, is magical. Plus actually having comments attached to
particular points in code, with context.

> -There is also a command line interface to Patchwork called `pwclient`, see
> -http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/wayland/
> -for links where to get it and the sample `.pwclientrc` for Wayland.
> +Once submitted to GitLab, your patches will be reviewed by the Weston

s/Weston/Wayland/

> +A common request is to split single large patch into multiple patches. This can
> +happen, for example, if when adding a new feature you notice a bug in Weston's

And again.

But the rest looks good to me and I'm thrilled to see it, so:
Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels at collabora.com>

Cheers,
Daniel