On 6/12/2012 4:01 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Alena Prokharchyk > <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >> I know it's been discussed in several email threads, but I would like to >> initiate a separate discussion on what tool we should use for reviweing >> the patches. >> >> Several people (including myself - using Outlook on Mac OS X Lion) have >> been struggling already with applying email patches using "git am". Some >> patches appear to be broken, email file import/save is different in >> various email clients, etc. But the main disadvantage - there is no other >> way to track patch flow history rather than gathering email by subject. >> For instance, I would like to see the patch history in some centralized >> place: >> >> * when patch was created >> * who picked up the patch for the review and when >> * what was fixed after first, second,...n review >> * when the patch was merged to the mainstream. >> >> I think we should start using the official tool for that - >> Gerrit/Reviewboard/etc. >> >> Please follow up with your suggestions and preferences. >> >> -Alena. >> >> > Thanks for starting this - I have a thrice rewritten mail sitting in > my drafts folder around this subject. Quick followup to voice some of > my frustrations. > > We have a process today - and for a number of folks that has worked > very well. I personally find it dead easy to grab patches from github > (though our mirroring is currently non-functional since we have made > the move to the ASF. ). There's also a certain class of folks that > have have sent patches via email that were also easy to apply. > > However, a number of folks are sitting behind servers or services that > actively break patches which has led to much gnashing of teeth here. > While I don't care so much about MUA issues, I do desperately despise > seeing MTAs breaking patches - and I spent around 4 hours last night > trying to unbreak patches from 3 different developers that their MTA > (all different) had made completely unusable. > > Where this really disturbs me is the barrier to participation. Working > on CloudStack is a pretty large barrier to begin with. You have to > understand the facet of CloudStack that you are working on, and then > understand git. > > While many of us can work via email - and some of us (me included) > even prefer it, I do worry about what the net effect is now that we > say - git patches submitted this way are actively broken by exchange, > appear to be broken by gmail, etc. I suppose we could push folks to > use some external mail service that behaves properly, but it seems > like an artificial barrier, and one that is largely out of the control > of folks wishing to collaborate with us. > > I think there are potentially benefits to using some tool other than > email down the road as well such as being able to have $test_suite run > against any patch before a committer even gets to review it. > > Thoughts, comments, flames? > > --David > Personally, I've always submitted patches via attaching them to bug reports. Works well when I find a bug in something, don't have time to wait on anyone else to fix it, so I fix it myself, attach it to a bug report, and hope it's in the next release so I don't have to deal with it again. Works pretty good with most open source projects.
Fred Wittekind
