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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4B3C433F5 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238905AbhLMQGa (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:06:30 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35394 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233834AbhLMQGa (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:06:30 -0500 Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:40e1:4800::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 152FCC061574 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:06:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CF94CE1182 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C0F8C34602; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:06:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1639411586; bh=+9UCmgjJBnGGefRjpHmzTEuVrzBAvSbvMS1mjhg5Wfc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=HAUOE1xmRjgrtikoVmTDIo5SKIukhu/VRTzV9RAlpOSUrjNSpJf78rtLqu+vhsV4r BWaVNR4gIhh6IcvIcq1XInDjwGn+q6mrZXoLYyM+RV3UaniYpDj+5awD9kawcj4qMj aEiAvSPDZEUtIREieHy7cSfyA4F/50vBPn3mPsZjQhwHpUYhiHXWbgl6pKAw7L5UTA +YOkWZHiwCQEsO00WJMvp4M4BQU+2OVd7ABuWKBK2wgzaPLoq2+MuRvBPcZU+8alCl xq59G8w27SLhxhGBCvvg/6cWrV5HfCnQsQiysvMmqkoCQ/YzPqtjmZjweNB0e+7Jxi r091VK4CCtsfQ== Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:06:25 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Toke =?UTF-8?B?SMO4aWxhbmQtSsO4cmdlbnNlbg==?= Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Monitoring the status of your own patches on patchwork? Message-ID: <20211213080625.7febffc2@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <877dc8fqui.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87mtl7ufl3.fsf@toke.dk> <20211213070840.4353fd6d@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <877dc8fqui.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:48:37 +0100 Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > > Status notification when checks are failing? Hopefully not, we don't > > want people posting patches just to get them tested... =20 >=20 > Well no, but sometimes a patch will have failures despite the best > efforts of the submitter (otherwise what's the point of the checks?). > Right now the only way for me to discover that there's an issue is to go > look at the patchwork web interface, and I wanted something that better > suits my workflow (i.e., that's not in a web browser). I think that the maintainer should notify the submitter about=20 the reason the patch state was changed (with the exception of patches for a different tree, maybe). I know Kees has been=20 trying to add more meaningful states to patchwork but I can never guess the meaning of those either :S So no automated state checker can replace the maintainer's reply. > I wasn't asking for patchwork to send out automatic notifications > (yikes!), I just wanted to know if anyone else had done something > similar before I go play around with the patchwork API myself... :) Despite the promise of "best effort" I fear such automation. It's pretty common in (let's call them) modern workflows to submit PRs / post changes just to get them tested by a CI. We don't want to give people the impression that the mailing list can serve this purpose. Obviously I can't stop you from writing your local code :)=20 just trying to widen the perspective.