From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
pabeni@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: document patchwork patch states
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:23:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230828122319.6ba6c400@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230828190911.GR14596@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:09:11 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > +New, Under review pending review, patch is in the maintainer’s queue for review
>
> Is there a meaningful distinction between "New" and "Under review", or
> are they exactly the same ? The former sounds like nobody has looked at
> the patch yet, while the latter seems to indicate someone has assigned
> the task of reviewing the patch to themselves, but maybe netdev uses
> those two states differently ?
The honest answer is that I don't know. I used to think that the
distinction is as you described - after someone done the initial triage
on the patch it goes New -> Under review.
But there's little consistency with that happening and it's unclear what
"initial triage" constitutes at this stage, so for all practical
purposes New == Under review.
> > +Accepted patch was applied to the appropriate networking tree, this is
> > + usually set automatically by the pw-bot
> > +Needs ACK waiting for an ack from an area maintainer or testing
>
> How does this differ from "Under review" ?
This indicates that netdev maintainers are waiting for someone who
is not a netdev maintainer. Let me s/maintainer/expert/ to make that
clearer-ish.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-28 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-28 18:44 Jakub Kicinski
2023-08-28 19:05 ` Randy Dunlap
2023-08-28 19:17 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-08-28 19:17 ` Randy Dunlap
2023-08-28 19:09 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-28 19:23 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230828122319.6ba6c400@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox