> -----Original Message----- > From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:29 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: non-committer workflow > > > > Hi, > > > > Prasanna and I've been playing with the > http://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/RBTools/0.4/RBTools- > 0.4.1.tar.gz tool for posting the reviews via a command line utility. > > I've a fork of the original tool that works for me: > https://github.com/bhaisaab/RBTool > > Usage: http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/gen/Review+Board > > Example: > git format-patch -o patches HEAD~1 > postreview --username=<user-name> --password=<password> --diff- > filename=patches/0001-myfix.patch --debug --description="description- > of-my-patch" #(add -p if you want to publish right away) > Test: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6299/ > > The patch is uploaded on paste.cloudstack.org and the link is appended > to the description.
Can we upload the patch to somewhere? The link is an url, you can't directly download it(for people on windows, there is no wget) > > Hope it works. > > Regards, > Rohit > > > > > We can tweak the script easily so when you submit a review request, > the original git formatted patch is uploaded to some public hosting > site and will append the link in the description. The committer can > then get the original patch with all author's info and apply it using > git am. > > > > Regards, > > Rohit > > > > On Aug 1, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Prasanna Santhanam > <prasanna.santha...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:07:07AM -0400, Wido den Hollander wrote: > >>>> > >>>> This was tried in the past and backfired when non-committers send > >>>> through patches that get formatted by mail clients and have CRLF > >>>> issues when applied by the committer. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I think this happens when people attach their patches, but if you > send > >>> them with "git send-email" they will go through just fine. > >>> > >>> HTML mail clients and stuff make garbage of patches. That's why I'm > >>> again HTML e-mail on this mailinglist. > >>> > >> > >> True - it's not necessarily the non-committer sending it through an > >> HTML client but some of our committers are forced in one way or > >> another to adhere to Outlook like clients. > >> > >> > >>>> 3) extra workflow step of submitter closing the patch request > >>>> > >>>> These probably should be addressed by tooling. > >>> > >>> Do you mean reviewboard tooling or tooling for patches through e- > mail? > >>> > >> > >> I meant reviewboard tooling/fix so it doesn't strip out author > >> information and so that git am works. Rohit's beaten me to the > request > >> with RB's team. It might take too much time before apache infra > >> decides to upgrade the reviews.a.o though. > >> > >> -- > >> Prasanna., > >
