[U-Boot] Include patchwork patch ID in commit message?

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:05:01PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:08:09PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> >> >> Hi Tom,
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm playing with the idea of including the patchwork patch ID in the
> >> >> commit message of each commit that I apply to provide better
> >> >> cross-reference ability.
> >> >>
> >> >> * Access to comments on patches
> >> >> * Clarity on exactly which version of a patch was applied
> >> >> * No need to search by patch subject
> >> >>
> >> >> Here is an example in a working branch:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-net.git;a=commit;h=48f9a0c786d0a3cbfdf45846567deaebe27a334a
> >> >
> >> > I'd prfer Patchwork or Patchwork-ID or something not just Patch.
> >>
> >> Would it be more or less compelling if it had a format similar this?
> >>
> >> Patchwork: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/571773/
> >
> > Yes.
> 
> Are you being funny (more and less == not)? Or did you miss-read? :)

Oops, yes, misread, yes, I like that.

> >> >> What do you (or anyone else) think?
> >> >
> >> > Well, I'm not a super fan of it.  For your second point, this is why I
> >> > use bundles, mutt and a macro.  For the other points, at least I find
> >> > google does a good job pulling up the right patch at least.
> >>
> >> Bundles seem awkward. Perhaps I'm just not using them effectively.
> >> What benefit do they give you? How are they part of your workflow?
> >
> > OK, I'm going to delete this in a few days but here's my bundle for the
> 
> Doesn't that mean it will very soon not be traceable exactly which
> patch version was applied? What I was proposing would mean that the
> commit message could continue to refer back to the patch even if
> archived.

It means the the link I gave for the bundle will be gone.  The patches
will be there, but I will also move them from Under Review to Accepted.

> > last import I did:
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/trini/2016-01-25-master-imports/
> > My flow is:
> > 1) Assign all unassigned patches
> > 2) Open my todo list in patchwork
> > 3) Create a bundle with all of the patches I want based on my critera at
> > the time.
> > 4) Download bundle as mbox, git am -3 it, get big build going.
> > 5) Open each patch link, check for Nak/Changed/Uncertanty that I missed
> > at first
> > 6) Assuming no repeats of part 4 of the cycle, mutt -f the bundle, for
> > each email group reply, run macro to insert applied message, postponed
> > 7) Check output from big build, assuming good results, push and spam out
> > all of my queued messages.
> 
> Gotcha. Thanks!
> 
> I'm trying to improve my workflow now, and this Patch tag was
> something that came out of it. It's not required for the workflow, but
> it is free to do within it. It has the potential to slightly simplify
> one possible workflow, so no big deal.
> 
> If people think it will be simply noise, I'll leave it out.
> 
> I think this may speed up cross-referencing. Seemed like a good thing.

My concern is that since it's not injected by patchwork already I would
have to add it to each commit.  Today, unless I need to either make
something apply or do a minor fixup to the contents, I don't modify any
commit message, so my git am is it.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160127/3c377601/attachment.sig>