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 12:42:51 GMT

On Aug 1, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> 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 most visible, and it seems most people are
>>> using ReviewBoard rather than email.
>> 
>> We should remove the email and submit with a bug options.
>> 
> 
> Are you sure? For larger patches I agree that e-mail isn't that easy, 
> but it seems to work with various other projects.
> 
> I personally like e-mail and 'hate' all kinds of various systems where I 
> have to log in with different credentials.

I totally agree with Wido, besides the review board workflow has a serious ownership issue:

When I submit a git formatted patch it would strip the commit message and author info, signature
and retain only the unified diff. The reviewer and/or committer have to do the extra work
of downloading the patch, applying/verifying it and then committing it. During the process
they may change the original commit message and author signature (and they lose their ohloh
points :)

Further, the contributor is then required to go back and close the submission. Well one can
use their mailbox from where they can import the patches, git am works. Or when the committer
is downloading the diff anyway, why not download the actual git formatted patch emailed by
an author and git apply? Just a suggestion.

Regards,
Rohit

> 
> If somebody finds a typo or small bug, should they really go through all 
> the hoops for submitting a small patch?
> 
> Imho that shouldn't be necessary.
> 
> Wido


Mime
View raw message