[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/developer: Add patchwork mentioning to "patch submission checklist"

Michael Niedermayer michael at niedermayer.cc
Wed Sep 7 15:27:07 EEST 2016

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 08:03:20AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
> > ---
> >  doc/developer.texi | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi
> > index 4d3a7ae..51e3da7 100644
> > --- a/doc/developer.texi
> > +++ b/doc/developer.texi
> > @@ -641,6 +641,12 @@ are notoriously left unchecked, which is a serious
> > problem.
> >  @item
> >  Test your code with valgrind and or Address Sanitizer to ensure it's free
> >  of leaks, out of array accesses, etc.
> > +
> > + at item
> > +Check that your submitted patch shows up on @url{
> > https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org}.
> > +Also make sure its status is updated, you can create an account and
> > update it.
> > +If your patch is incorrectly or not listed in patchwork then it might be
> > +missed by developers using patchwork to find patches needing review or
> > pushing.
> >  @end enumerate
> I don't think we should require developers to use (or check, or update, or
> create-an-account-on) patchwork. Wasn't the whole point of patchwork that
> you can use it if you care, and you can ignore it if you don't care?

yes one can ignore it but its alot more usefull if people keep in
mind that theres patchwork.

For example, if you reply with LGTM or Acked-by: or Reviewed-by:
or Tested-by:
patchwork will pick that up, OTOH if you write "that works well,
i tested it" patchwork will not pick that up, nor will it "dude that
looks fine, please push it" nor does it "I dont like that change"

the result of that is that if everyone ignores patchwork it will
contain most submited patches (some odd non standard attachmets are
it would pick up most but not all applied patches (change the patch
before push and it will quite potentially not realize its the same)
it wont on its own detect superseded patches nor would it know if a
patch is forgotten or dropped
it also picks the fate output up as patch as it is techinically a patch

ive writte a script to automate this a bit further so fate output gets
marked as not applicable, so that more applied patches are detected and
so that most superseeded patches are detected as such

but people keeping an eye on patchwork and updating status where it
just cannot figure it out or improving its automation or making sure
they reply with keywords it understands or update it so it picks up
the used keywords would all be a good idea. And it would improve
the usefulness of patchwork, finding out which patches need a review
needs all applied, superseeded an droped patches to be marked
accordingly. Also patchwork supports keeping track of delegation so
if someone is working on a patch review or whatever patchwork can be
told about that and people would then know not to push the patch before
the reviewer is done. Thats not automatic though either, it requires
developers to have an account and set the status of the patch by hand

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Old school: Use the lowest level language in which you can solve the problem
New school: Use the highest level language in which the latest supercomputer
            can solve the problem without the user falling asleep waiting.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20160907/fabff4f5/attachment.sig>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list