Hi Arun, On Sun, 08 May 2022 at 11:43, Arun Isaac <arunis...@systemreboot.net> wrote: > Hi Ludo, > >> The attached super-early-draft ‘guix review’ script fetches mboxes from >> mumi—that part is OK. > > I like the idea! But, could we put this in mumi instead of guix? That > way, other packages that use debbugs/mumi (skribilo comes to mind), can > benefit from it as well. Something like
Personally, I think such feature is a perfect candidate to Guix extensions. > Maybe, we should read some config file, say mumi.scm, from the top-level > directory of the current git repo to determine settings (think package > name, debbugs/mumi web URI, post-processing function to provide feedback > about the patch, etc.) specific to that repo. I agree that it deserves a config file. For instance, piem [1] uses something like, ("guix" :url "https://yhetil.org/guix" :address "guix-patc...@gnu.org" :listid "guix-patc...@gnu.org" :coderepo "~/src/guix/") 1: <https://docs.kyleam.com/piem/Registering-inboxes.html#Registering-inboxes> >> What’s more difficult is the rest: determining what’s a patch and what’s >> not (I gather this is something that b4 and Patchwork handle nicely), >> getting the latest patch series, things like that. > > At some point, we should patch mumi to determine these. Determining the > latest patch series shouldn't be hard if we use the Date > header. guile-email will let us read any email header. Well, I think the general case is not easy. For an example of a complex thread and patch submission, consider this one: <https://yhetil.org/guix/cu7pnfaar36....@systemreboot.net/#r> I have not tried to use B4 [2] on that one though. Somehow, I am not convinced that the Date header would be enough to identify the last patches. For instance, the first submission is a patch attached, then the others are inline, then comments are interleaved, etc. 2: <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/b4/b4.git/about/> IMHO, this determination requires some work. :-) That’s said, we could also agree that “mumi review” would only work when a set of rules (inline patches, base-commit, etc.) are applied. And for the other cases, the current manual patches application would be used. Somehow, constraint a set of rule would ease the automation and it appears to me an acceptable trade-off: it helps such automation and the work by reviewer and in addition we can still deal with the submissions not respecting such rules by reusing the “laborious” current method. Cheers, simon