workflows.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring the status of your own patches on patchwork?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 19:39:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgp4z6w0.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211213080625.7febffc2@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:48:37 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> > Status notification when checks are failing? Hopefully not, we don't
>> > want people posting patches just to get them tested...  
>> 
>> 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 
> the reason the patch state was changed (with the exception of
> patches for a different tree, maybe). I know Kees has been 
> 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.

Well, sometimes the maintainers forget to reply entirely :)

And yeah, I do realise that no bot is going to be able to tell me
exactly what the current status is, I just want a tool to help me
manually keep track...

>> 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.

People could already do that, though, they just have to look at the
patchwork site. And I really don't think it's that convenient of an
interface that this is a real risk. But don't worry, I'm not planning to
publish this as a generally-available service :)

-Toke


  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-13 18:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-11 19:06 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-12-13 15:08 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-12-13 15:48   ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-12-13 16:06     ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-12-13 18:39       ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2021-12-13 22:56         ` Kees Cook
2021-12-13 18:37 ` Simon Glass
2021-12-13 21:43   ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-12-13 23:51     ` Simon Glass
2021-12-14  2:12   ` Randy Dunlap
2021-12-14 16:31     ` Simon Glass

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=87zgp4z6w0.fsf@toke.dk \
    --to=toke@redhat.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --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