Re: Patch committers

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 02:32, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 13:35, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> >> How about we add specific feature(s) about tihs to the commitfest
>>> >> management tool? Like the possibility to directly link a git
>>> >> repo/branch with the patch?
>>> >
>>> > So two fields, one for the repo URL and one for the branch name?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think that's it. It might actually be interesting to pull the
>>> latest version date and make a note in the cf management stuff
>>> automagically in case there the git repo has a more updated version
>>> than the one that was submitted. I think that could be quite useful -
>>> shouldn't be too hard to do, I think. Probably just a cron job that
>>> updates a third col in the db?
>>
>> Can you get git to dynamically generate a tree diff via a URL?  That
>> would be nice.  Extra points for a context diff.  ;-)
>
> I dunno about the automated comment generation thing.  Seems like it
> could generate a lot of comment spam inside the app.  Also, I'm not
> sure if we really want to move away from the mailing list as the
> primary way of sharing patches.  One nice thing about having them on
> the mailing list is that it is a permanent archive.  Another is that
> it it is a "push" mechanism - you don't have to go to the CommitFest
> app and notice, hey, there are new patches here, or new versions of
> existing patches.  You just read your email and there they are.

Yeah, I agree.

> I'm not averse to adding fields for repo and branch; that seems pretty
> uncontroversial, since they'll be optional and those who don't want to
> use them needn't.  But I think the rest of this needs a bit more
> thought.  Just MHO, of course.

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting auto-adding comments. I was just
suggesting adding a flag that'll put some kind of marker on the line
saying "there's something newer in the git repo". Obviously only if
the git repo has been specified, and not mandatory.

The idea being to encourage people to use git, not force them to :-)
And exploiting the extra value we get from git for patches that do
change often.

It's not a replacement - the current policy of posting patches to the
list is still the way they should be submitted. It's just an extra
tool.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/