Re: Patchwork + automated checking and testing of patches

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Christopher Baines <address@hidden> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

>> Back when we tried, it had a couple of shortcomings:
>>
>>   1. It would not automatically detect which patches have been merged;
>>
>>   2. It would not present patch series correctly.
>>
>> From what you write it looks like #1 has been fixed, but the web
>> interface suggests that #2 isn’t quite fixed yet, is that correct?
>
> On the detecting merged patches, that's definately working for some
> patches though. I don't fully understand what criteria it's using
> though, as it's comparing the commits that come through to the master
> branch, and I bet it's possible to confuse it a bit by tweaking patches
> before pushing them.
>
> Regarding patch series, I don't know much about the specifics of this,
> and I don't know much about Patchwork, but just comparing a few patches
> on the older version [1], and the newer version [2], it looks like it's
> better. Take this patch [3], it's part of a series, but you can't
> tell. However, with this patch [4], you can see the series and related
> patches towards the top of the page, and also a link to download the
> whole series as an mbox. How does this look to you?

It looks better than the old Patchwork version, but I think
<https://patchwork.cbaines.net/project/guix-patches/list/> still leaves
a bit to be desired.  For instance, it shows every message, even for
series.

At this point I find <https://issues.guix.info/search?query=is%3Aopen>
clearer and less cluttered, though it needs some improvements (e.g.,
most-recent-first sorting, listing all the open issues, etc.), which I
think should be relatively easy to do.  Also, it is directly linked to
Debbugs and its notion of issues and associated properties (bug number,
owner, status, tags, etc.), which is good IMO.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.