Hi, On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 04:58:13PM +0200, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Before we go ahead with any actions here, let me explain why I think it > is good to have some sort of mails going to the ML, and what I think is > broken at the moments.
No worries, Im drowned with work and will not suddenly change everything tommorrow. ;) > > The reason why we should have the mails going to the ML is simple - we > want to integrate the patches as quickly as possible, and for many, the > mailing list is the primary way of operation - see Lionel's workflow. > > I use something similar too - I read the ML so that first I kill threads > ending with [PUSHED], and then check the not yet merged patches; and > when it is something that I know something about, I go to gerrit & > integrate it. For those using such a workflow, both a second list of gerrit watches can keep the flow of information. > What seems to be broken (to me) though are 2 things: > > - the mails for the stable branches > - no need for announcements there, as people usually know whom to CC > to get a review, and it is later to be scanned by the person doing > tags before the tagging That should be easy to fix. > - the mails when "LibreOffice gerrit bot" is explicitly in the CC > - for those, not only [PATCH] and [PUSHED] go to the ML, but all the > discussion etc. Hmmm, that _could_ be a feature though to bring a discussion to the dev-list (see Thorstens mail). Maybe we just need to clarify how to use this. > So before we do any radical action, what about to fix those 2 above [if > we can agree that the above is bug, and not a feature], and then see how > much the situation improves? The first should be a technical fix, the second is a social one and thus harder. But overall both will not help anything at all with the huge number of threads started by automated mails. > I can imagine 3rd thing to improve later, and that is to mail the > initial [PATCH] mail to the ML only if it does not get merged in eg. 1/2 > day after submission ;-) - but that would probably need a patch to > gerrit, or something. Well, yeah. And when we wait half a day, we could also collect all the unpushed fixes in _one_ mail and not start one thread for each. We could go fancy and call this mail "digest". ;) I dont see the need to track the status of patches via flaky "PUSHED" "PATCH" subjects of emails -- at least for patches on gerrit, gerrit has a much better way of keeping track of things as it tracks and watches the repository directly. Best, Bjoern _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
