Josselin Poiret <d...@jpoiret.xyz> writes: > One thing I would like to get rid of though is debbugs. It causes a > lot of pain for everyone, eg. when sending patchsets, it completely > breaks modern email because it insists on rewriting DMARC-protected > headers, thus needing to also rewrite "From:" to avoid DMARC errors.
Thank you for sharing (what seems to be) a technical limitation of Debbugs. Could you please explain what the consequences of the above are? Specifically, how does the rewriting of above headers affect the contributors' workflow? > b4/lei is a nice example (we already have yhetil.org as a back-end, > but maybe a more blessed one would be better) of a tool that lets you > completely automate applying a patchset to a branch. > > patchwork is a nice tool to gather up and track patchsets, with status > indicators like "under review", "accepted", etc. Chris already > deploys one as part of QA, more integration with it would be nice. It seems (based on above) that "patchwork" can co-exist with debbugs. Is that also the case with b4/lei? Specifically, are the users/reviewers able to benefit from using the above tools at present? Or are there some reasons (over and above their lack of familiarity with the above tools) that would prevent them from doing so? -- Suhail
