How to re-send a series of patches?
stephen at that.guru
Thu Nov 8 09:56:09 AEDT 2018
On Wed, 2018-11-07 at 19:03 +0000, Christopher Baines wrote:
> 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 , and a test instance running
> > > .
> > 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  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 .
> > I'm afraid the documentation you're referring to refers to the free-
> > desktop fork of Patchwork , which differs from upstream Patchwork
> >  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: https://that.guru/blog/patchwork-and-ci-in-a-tree/
> I'll let you know how I get on :)
Do please! Just FYI that blog was written against a pre-release version
of 2.0 so some things might be out-of-date. I've just pushed up some
updates that I've had lying around since last year (!) but they might
be incomplete. If you see anything weird, feel free to give me a shout
and I'll update.
> Thanks again,
More information about the Patchwork