Boris Brezillon writes:
> Hello Michael,
>
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 21:18:28 +1100
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
>> Mark Brown writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:36:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:14 AM Linus Torvalds
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Are there
Hello Michael,
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 21:18:28 +1100
Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Mark Brown writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:36:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:14 AM Linus Torvalds
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> > Are there other situations where you might want to
Mark Brown writes:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:36:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:14 AM Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>
>> > Are there other situations where you might want to track something
>> > _outside_ of a pull request? Maybe. I can't really think of a lot of
>> > t
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:28 AM Konstantin Ryabitsev
wrote:
>
> Regarding your case specifically, what's a good cutoff period for
> treating a pull request as effectively ignored/abandoned (i.e. no
> matching commit-id ever found in the repo). I'm guessing about a month,
> or do you want to go lon
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:13:59AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It would be much nicer if the "notification" really did the right
> thing, and created an actual email follow-up, with the correct To/Cc
> and subject lines, but also the proper "References" line so that it
> actually gets threaded p
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:36:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:14 AM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > Are there other situations where you might want to track something
> > _outside_ of a pull request? Maybe. I can't really think of a lot of
> > them, though. Patches etc don'
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:14 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> I'm back home, slightly jetl-agged, but _oh_ so relieved to not be
> doing the merge window on a laptop any more.
>
> I've been continuing to just manually ack the pull requests, but I've
> almost forgotten a few times (and maybe I _did_ fo
I'm back home, slightly jetl-agged, but _oh_ so relieved to not be
doing the merge window on a laptop any more.
I've been continuing to just manually ack the pull requests, but I've
almost forgotten a few times (and maybe I _did_ forget one or two and
didn't catch it? Who knows?).
So while maybe
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> So I've got a few options:
>
> - just don't do it
As with other folks, this is what we're used to, but it does cause a
lot of "polling" your tree to see what's landed. (And your "Pulled"
email to pstore today scared the crap out of me brie
On 10/23/2018 02:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 23 October 2018 at 10:41, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> So I've obviously started pulling stuff for the merge window, and one
>> of the things I noticed with Greg doing it for the last few weeks was
>> that he has this habit (or automation) to send Ack
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:46:06AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
If it's a "proper" pull request (ie done by git request-pull), then
the magic marker would be that it as that
for you to fetch changes up to %H:
line where %H is the hash of the tip of the tree that is requested to be pulled.
T
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:42 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So I've obviously started pulling stuff for the merge window, and one
> of the things I noticed with Greg doing it for the last few weeks was
> that he has this habit (or automation) to send Ack emails when he
> pulls.
>
> In fact, I reacte
On 23 October 2018 at 10:41, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> So I've obviously started pulling stuff for the merge window, and one
> of the things I noticed with Greg doing it for the last few weeks was
> that he has this habit (or automation) to send Ack emails when he
> pulls.
>
> In fact, I reacted to
On 10/23/18 2:41 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I've obviously started pulling stuff for the merge window, and one
> of the things I noticed with Greg doing it for the last few weeks was
> that he has this habit (or automation) to send Ack emails when he
> pulls.
>
> In fact, I reacted to them not
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Comments?
I'm used to watching the git-commits-head mailing list to see what's being
pulled and don't need anything further as an ack.
--
James Morris
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:17:38AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> sent in-reply to the original email or in a separate email. I know Mark
> (Brown) has it automated in some way, not sure if it's through patchwork
> or if he's using a custom tool, and I'm also not sure it works for pull
> requests
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:35 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
>
> Can you tag merge commit with message-id of the pull request?
> Automation machinery can reply to the pull request with proper CC list
> obtained from the archive?
If it's a "proper" pull request (ie done by git request-pull), then
th
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:35:22PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:10:47AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So I feel that he automation model is just not good. The reply should
> > go to the actual pull request, not to the git history. People who want
> > just _that_
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:10:47AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I feel that he automation model is just not good. The reply should
> go to the actual pull request, not to the git history. People who want
> just _that_ could already automate the git history thing without me
> even doing anythin
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In particular, the issue is that after each pull, I do a build test
> before the pull is really "final", and while that build test is
> ongoing (which takes anything from a few minutes to over an hour when
> I'm on the road and using
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:02:45 +0200,
Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my
> > pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where bad
> > might be just "oops,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In contrast, this email is written "after the fact", just scripting
> "who did I pull for and then push out" by just looking at the git
> tree. Which sucks, because it means that I don't actually answer the
> original email at all,
Hi Linus,
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:41:32 +0100
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I'm mainly pinging people I've already pulled to see how much
> people actually _care_. Yes, the ack is nice, but do people care
> enough that I should try to make that workflow change? Traditionally,
> you can see that I'v
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:03 AM Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my
> > pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where bad
> > might be just "oops, my
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I've got a few options:
>
> - just don't do it
>
> - acking the pull request before it's validated and finalized.
>
> - starting the reply when doing the pull, leaving the email open in a
> separate window, going on to the next pull request, and then when
> bu
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:53 AM Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> Can't you just tool something that mails automatically after-the-fact?
So a certain amount of simple/stupid automation would be possible.
That's how the participants list in this email was generated, but the
script I used was actually a pre
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my
> pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where bad
> might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to
> fix up my merge"
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> In particular, the issue is that after each pull, I do a build test
> before the pull is really "final", and while that build test is
> ongoing (which takes anything from a few minutes to over an hour when
> I'm on the road and using my lap
So I've obviously started pulling stuff for the merge window, and one
of the things I noticed with Greg doing it for the last few weeks was
that he has this habit (or automation) to send Ack emails when he
pulls.
In fact, I reacted to them not being there when he sent himself his
fake pull message
29 matches
Mail list logo
