From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04137ABA for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F8F1AA for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgjx7 with SMTP id x7so198847013wgj.2 for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 08:21:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <559D34E2.1050703@roeck-us.net> References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <2102387.OD8sBG4Eol@avalon> <559C73DF.2030008@roeck-us.net> <559D34E2.1050703@roeck-us.net> From: Bjorn Helgaas Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:20:55 -0500 Message-ID: To: Guenter Roeck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 07/08/2015 07:20 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >>> ... In once recent case, where I did spend the time, >>> and I thought the maintainer had agreed to accept the patch, I ended up >>> getting an automated patchwork email telling me that the patch was >>> deferred indefinitely. Not really encouraging either. >> >> Hmm, I use patchwork, but I don't have any idea what it looks like on >> the submitter's side. If it generates discouraging emails, that's bad >> news to me. I change the state of lots of patches because (a) they >> were cross-posted and I expect another maintainer to deal with them, >> (b) they have been superseded, (c) there have been reviews that >> require a respin, etc. I'm not very careful about the actual state >> because from my point of view, all the states do the same thing: >> remove the patch from my to-do list. >> >> I wish I knew how to use patchwork better, or had a smarter workflow >> that could comprehend a series as a single entity. Patchwork is a lot >> of clicking, but I don't know anything better. > > Wasn't you (in case you think so), and I don't think it is a problem that > patchwork sends e-mail. The problem in this case was that the maintainer > seemed to suggest that he would accept the patch before deferring it. > At that point I gave up pushing for it. > > Now, if you set a bug to "deferred" state because you intend to pick it > up for the next release, that would be different and might in fact be > considered discouraging, unless you let the submitter know what is going on. That's one thing I don't like about patchwork: there's no way that I know of to annotate the state change. I'd like a way to change the state to "Changes requested" along with a pointer to the relevant email. Or to "Not applicable" along with a pointer to the other tree I expect it to go through. It'd be nice if one could include patchwork directives in an email, the way you can with the Debian bug tracker. Bjorn