incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: non-committer workflow
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:28:47 GMT

> 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.cloudstack.org/display/gen/Review+Board

Example:
git format-patch -o patches HEAD~1
postreview --username=<user-name> --password=<password> --diff-filename=patches/0001-myfix.patch
--debug --description="description-of-my-patch"  #(add -p if you want to publish right away)
Test: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6299/

The patch is uploaded on paste.cloudstack.org and the link is appended to the description.

Hope it works.

Regards,
Rohit

> 
> We can tweak the script easily so when you submit a review request, the original git
formatted patch is uploaded to some public hosting site and will append the link in the description.
The committer can then get the original patch with all author's info and apply it using git
am.
> 
> Regards,
> Rohit
> 
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Prasanna Santhanam <Prasanna.Santhanam@citrix.com>
wrote:
> 
>> 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 attach their patches, but if you send 
>>> them with "git send-email" they will go through just fine.
>>> 
>>> HTML mail clients and stuff make garbage of patches. That's why I'm 
>>> again HTML e-mail on this mailinglist.
>>> 
>> 
>> True - it's not necessarily the non-committer sending it through an
>> HTML client but some of our committers are forced in one way or
>> another to adhere to Outlook like clients. 
>> 
>> 
>>>> 3) extra workflow step of submitter closing the patch request
>>>> 
>>>> These probably should be addressed by tooling.
>>> 
>>> Do you mean reviewboard tooling or tooling for patches through e-mail?
>>> 
>> 
>> I meant reviewboard tooling/fix so it doesn't strip out author
>> information and so that git am works. Rohit's beaten me to the request
>> with RB's team. It might take too much time before apache infra
>> decides to upgrade the reviews.a.o though. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Prasanna.,
> 


Mime
View raw message