Hi Jonathan, On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 08:38:26PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2024 at 20:19, Jeff Law via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > We're currently using patchwork to track patches tagged with RISC-V. We > > don't do much review with patchwork. In that model patchwork ultimately > > just adds overhead as I'm constantly trying to figure out what patches > > have been integrated vs what are still outstanding. > > If patches sent by email exactly match what's committed, then the > update_gcc_pw.sh script that I run will correctly update patchwork to > say they're committed. I tend to only bother running that once a week, > because it misses so many and so is of limited use. If we are now > supposed to send generated files in the patches, and we discourage > people from committing something close-but-not-identical to what they > sent by email, then the script will do a better job of updating > patchwork, and then we should look at running it automatically (not > just when I think to run it manually).
See also https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30997 We really should automate this. There are several people running scripts by hand. The easiest would be to simply run it from a git hook. patchwork comes with a simple script that just calculates the hash and pings patchwork, which can then mark the patch associated with that hash as committed. If people really believe calculating a hash is too much work from a git hook then we can also simply run it from builder.sourceware.org. We already run a builder for each commit anyway. It would just be one extra build step checking the commit against patchwork. Cheers, Mark
