Series of one patch?

[Sean Farley]

Stephen Finucane <stephen at that.guru> writes:

> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 13:03 -0700, Sean Farley wrote:
>> Stephen Finucane <stephen at that.guru> writes:
>> 
>> > One of my Red Hat colleagues showed me a tool this morning - patches [1] -
>> > that
>> > the QEMU community use. They seem to be building a huge JSON blob of
>> > seriesified patches as part of a cron job [2], and that tool can
>> > download/parse
>> > this blob and apply locally stored patches.
>> > 
>> > I noted that in that blob, _everything_ is considered to be part of a
>> > series.
>> > I've seen this design before in the freedesktop instance [3] and wasn't too
>> > pushed on it at the time as it seemed like a bit of a lie (those patches
>> > aren't
>> > actually in a series). However, the ability to see *all* patches in series-
>> > patch manner, rather than the inverted patch-series manner, is actually
>> > rather
>> > nifty. If would also mean testing of patches could happen without needing
>> > to
>> > filter for both 'patch-created' (for non-series patches) and 'series-
>> > completed' 
>> > events (for series patches).
>> > 
>> > What do folks think? Any reason not to create a series for _all_ patches?
>> 
>> I kinda assumed this was already done. Just to clarify, as of right now,
>> patchwork doesn't not put a single patch into a series?
>
> The key differentiator is whether the subject has series markers (i.e. [N/M]).
> This means that if the patch has a cover letter (and therefore has a [1/1]
> marker) then it would go into a series. Without this, however, the 'series'
> attribute is unset.

Our (Mercurial) mailing list actually bans summary emails; so none of
our series have that cover letter.

>> I like to think of all series (even those of one patch) as a branch. So,
>> a bit like saying a branch can only have >1 commit and those of one
>> commit are not on a branch. Weird to me.
>
> That's not a bad analogy. I was thinking of them more as auto-generated
> bundles, and there wasn't a need to "bundle" a single patch. A branch might be
> a better approach.
>
> Overall so, I'm guessing you're in favour of this?

Yep :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/patchwork/attachments/20170623/66aa8190/attachment.sig>