From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43967CA9EC7 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:52:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD2C20862 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:52:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726229AbfKBLwh (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:52:37 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0194.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.194]:41810 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726163AbfKBLwh (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:52:37 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 342 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sat, 02 Nov 2019 07:52:36 EDT Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF0E18028999 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:46:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25E5100E7B43; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:46:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-HE-Tag: clock92_1ef4a9c78de48 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2174 Received: from grimm.local.home (vin.openfest.org [185.117.82.237]) (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:46:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:46:47 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: Daniel Axtens , Han-Wen Nienhuys , workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Lyon meeting notes Message-ID: <20191102074647.404a6554@grimm.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20191101172910.x7neoilwaotj5njb@pure.paranoia.local> References: <87wocnmb8j.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> <20191101172910.x7neoilwaotj5njb@pure.paranoia.local> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4git49 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:29:10 -0400 Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > For the lack of a better term, I'm calling it "local patchwork", though > it's more likely to be a closely related spin-off that would hopefully > share a lot of code with patchwork and be able to both benefit from > upstream and to commit code back up for any shared functionality. I know this was one of the "not within 6 months" parts, but I don't want this to be lost. One of the issues with a 'local patchwork' that was brought up is if you have multiple maintainers of a single subsystem. How one maintainer might say "accept" and another might say "reject", if one was doing this offline, and uploaded to the central system, it could conflict with the changes there. What I suggested was, for multi maintainer systems, to allow for individual accounts. Where a "accept" of a patch would require an accept from all the given maintainers. Kind of like a hierarchy. This way, even if you are offline, you can upload your own "accept" and it wont affect the "reject" from the other maintainer. But you would be able to see everyone's judgment of a patch when you get back online. -- Steve