On 07/24/2018 10:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 24.07.18 at 11:24, <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 03:06:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 23.07.18 at 18:40, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> # How does this impact me? >>>> The contribution workflow is *not* impacted by this change, but once up >>>> and >> >>>> running the following will happen once you post a patch or patch series to >>>> xen-devel: >>>> * Patchwork will take patch series from the mailing list and applies it >>>> * CI/DC testing is triggered >>>> * A test report will be sent as a mail to the patch or the series (aka the >>>> 00 patch of the series) >>>> >>>> This does mean though that series which do not build or show other issues, >>>> will likely not be reviewed until the tests pass. This would lessen the >>>> burden on reviewers, as they will know whether the code submitted builds >>>> on a >>>> wide array of environments. >>> >>> So how are dependencies between series intended to be dealt with? It >>> is not uncommon for someone to say "applies only on top of xyz". The >>> implication of "will likely not be reviewed until the tests pass" seems >>> unsuitable to me in such a case. >>> >> >> We have been asking everyone to rebase to staging before posting a new >> version for a long time. It is natural for the bot to assume that >> everything should apply on top of staging. That would provide most value >> to the community. >> >> For special cases like you just mention, we should aim to provide >> mechanisms to manually appoint a branch to be tested. > > I'm afraid I disagree again: Tools used should not be dictated. I'm > using quilt, not git for my work, and hence I don't maintain any > branches anywhere.
Well it's never been our habit to review patch series sent against random private branches. (x86-next not being a random private branch.) The idea would be that you put a tag in the message somewhere that indicates what the patchbot should do. This would probably be just the message-id of the patch series, given that (steady state) your previous series would have had the bot reply to it with a link. Something like this: Prerequisite-series: <[email protected]> If the sender doesn't add the prerequisite series, then of course it won't apply; but the reviewer can choose to ignore the failure in that case. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
