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

[Joe Hershberger]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Does it make sense to enhance patchwork to inject such link into the
> commit automatically? It can also be a project configuration option so
> that other projects tracked by patchwork can turn it on on their
> needs.

That would certainly make it a more unified implementation. The way
I'm doing it is simply with an automatic git commit --amend after the
git am in my script that downloads and applies mbox files from
patchwork.

-Joe