> -Original Message-
> From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:14 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: non-committer workflow
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Edison Su wrote:
> >&
t; From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:13 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: non-committer workflow
>
> Hi Rajesh,
>
> From: Rajesh Battala [rajesh.batt...@citri
On Aug 2, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Edison Su wrote:
>>
>> 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)
Yes, that is
On 2 August 2012 04:10, Edison Su wrote:
>
>
>> -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
>&g
: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:13 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: non-committer workflow
Hi Rajesh,
From: Rajesh Battala [rajesh.batt...@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 8:46 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject
> -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,
> >
> > Prasann
Hi Rajesh,
From: Rajesh Battala [rajesh.batt...@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 8:46 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: non-committer workflow
Rohit,
Pradeep had played and tweaked the same tools for our team. If you are
> 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.c
uot; submission method, and quietly allow email or attachments to
>> bugs.
>
>
> This seems to be the conclusion of this thread, even though review board is
> not perfect.
> We can edit the wiki page to clarify the non-committer workflow, and document
> review board process as well as "wido's" email workflow...
>
Edit boldly!
the conclusion of this thread, even though review board is not
perfect.
We can edit the wiki page to clarify the non-committer workflow, and document
review board process as well as "wido's" email workflow...
Agreed ?
-sebastien
>
> Best,
>
> Joe
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> http://dissociatedpress.net/
> Twitter: @jzb
, 2012 8:03 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.
We can tweak the s
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.
We can tweak the script easily so when you submit a review request, the
original git formatted patch is uploaded to so
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 06:26:38PM +0530, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:42:51AM -0400, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> I agree Reviewboard has extra workflow involved but it integrates the
> review comments closely with the mailing list so it isn't as different
> from patches in the
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 atta
>
> I'm still very new to the project, but I found it very difficult to
> follow up what's going on because patches are in separate places.
> I'd argue there should be one single workflow so that we can better
> keep track of the status.
This is interesting feedback.
I was hoping we'd keep the bar
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Prasanna Santhanam
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:42:51AM -0400, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>>
>> > On 08/01/2012 04:50 AM, Alex Huang wrote:
>> >>> So currently, there are three ways for a patch to be receiv
On 08/01/2012 02:56 PM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:42:51AM -0400, Rohit Yadav wrote:
On Aug 1, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
On 08/01/2012 04:50 AM, Alex Huang wrote:
So currently, there are three ways for a patch to be received:
1. Email (see the wor
Hi Prasanna,
On Aug 1, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Prasanna Santhanam
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:42:51AM -0400, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/01/2012 04:50 AM, Alex Huang wrote:
> So currently, there are three ways for a patch
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:42:51AM -0400, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
> > On 08/01/2012 04:50 AM, Alex Huang wrote:
> >>> So currently, there are three ways for a patch to be received:
> >>> 1. Email (see the workflow Wido proposed) 2. Reviewboa
On Aug 1, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 04:50 AM, Alex Huang wrote:
>>> So currently, there are three ways for a patch to be received:
>>> 1. Email (see the workflow Wido proposed) 2. Reviewboard 3. Submitted
>>> with a bug.
>>>
>>> Email and ReviewBoard are the mo
On 08/01/2012 04:50 AM, Alex Huang wrote:
So currently, there are three ways for a patch to be received:
1. Email (see the workflow Wido proposed) 2. Reviewboard 3. Submitted
with a bug.
Email and ReviewBoard are the most visible, and it seems most people are
using ReviewBoard rather than email.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
>> So currently, there are three ways for a patch to be received:
>> 1. Email (see the workflow Wido proposed) 2. Reviewboard 3. Submitted
>> with a bug.
>>
>> Email and ReviewBoard are the most visible, and it seems most people are
>> using Revi
> So currently, there are three ways for a patch to be received:
> 1. Email (see the workflow Wido proposed) 2. Reviewboard 3. Submitted
> with a bug.
>
> Email and ReviewBoard are the most visible, and it seems most people are
> using ReviewBoard rather than email.
We should remove the email and
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:14 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: non-committer workflow
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:05 PM, sebgoa wrote:
> >
> > So No
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:05 PM, sebgoa wrote:
>
> So Non-committers don't need to get an account on RB and submit patches via
> that path ?
>
So currently, there are three ways for a patch to be received:
1. Email (see the workflow Wido proposed)
2. Reviewboard
3. Submitted with a bug.
Email a
On Jul 31, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 10:24 PM, sebgoa wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since I am new to Cloudstack and Apache like projects, I was looking at the
>> process for submitting a very small patch (e.g typo, one-liner, license
>> header)
>
> Always welcome!
>
On 07/31/2012 10:24 PM, sebgoa wrote:
Hi,
Since I am new to Cloudstack and Apache like projects, I was looking at the
process for submitting a very small patch (e.g typo, one-liner, license header)
Always welcome!
The wiki page on how to use git o contribute to Cloudstack has a section for
Hi,
Since I am new to Cloudstack and Apache like projects, I was looking at the
process for submitting a very small patch (e.g typo, one-liner, license header)
The wiki page on how to use git o contribute to Cloudstack has a section for
non-committer:
http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/dev/Git
28 matches
Mail list logo
