How to re-send a series of patches?

[Christopher Baines]

Stephen Finucane <stephen at that.guru> writes:

> On Sun, 2018-11-04 at 16:01 +0000, Christopher Baines wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I've been recently looking at setting up Patchwork, and been trying to
>> get used to using it. So far, it's been going quite well, I've got a
>> rough package and service for GNU Guix [1], and a test instance running
>> [2].
>
> Sounds like the actually deployment of Patchwork was a mostly painless
> exercise? If so, good to hear :) If not, be sure to let us know of
> anything in particular that hurt.

Yep, mostly painless :)

>> I've become a bit stuck with re-sending a series of patches. The
>> documentation [3] reads like there should be some involvement of the
>> "initial" series, but so far with my limited testing, I seem to be
>> creating new series [4].
>
> I'm afraid the documentation you're referring to refers to the free-
> desktop fork of Patchwork [1], which differs from upstream Patchwork
> [2] you've deployed in some ways. One of those things is the support
> for linking of series, which is incomplete in upstream Patchwork. This
> fork also introduces a proper series view, which is something that is
> also sadly missing from upstream.

Ha! I completely missed that, I think I was searching around for usage
information, and obviously stumbled on a different documentation site.

>> So, I just wanted to check what the expectations are for creating a "new
>> revision of the initial series" and how the cover letter subject is
>> used?
>
> Upstream currently treats series as wholly independent from each other.
> There is not currently any linking between them and once a series has
> been sent, there's no way to modify it other than through changing the
> name. We're planning to close this gap but, for now, the main focus is
> on other features (time is limited). If this is a feature you really
> need right now, the obvious solutions I can think of are to either port
> the changes from the free-desktop fork into upstream, or simply deploy
> that fork. Bear in mind that the fork has diverged significantly and
> there are differences in the APIs and general features that you will
> need to account for if you opt for the latter, but I guess it would be
> less work in the short term. We do plan to close this gap sooner rather
> than later (2.3, perhaps?) but we have no full-time developers and time
> is always against us, heh.

This is really helpful, thanks Stephen. I'm actually not too fussed
about re-sending patches as series at the moment, it was just something
I tried and wanted to follow up on.

What I'm really trying to is get to the point where the series can be
tested. I know you've written and talked about using Patchwork for this
[1].

1: https://that.guru/blog/patchwork-and-ci-in-a-tree/

I'll let you know how I get on :)

Thanks again,

Chris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 962 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/patchwork/attachments/20181107/c2941a1e/attachment.sig>