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

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:49:40AM +0100, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> Hello Bin,
> 
> Am 28.01.2016 um 02:49 schrieb Bin Meng:
> >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.
> 
> +1

Well, code it up and send the patchwork list a patch and see how it goes
:)

-- 
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/20160128/0b74770b/attachment.sig>