[Sugar-devel] Patchwork

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 13:42, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 09:35 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:38, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:52:49AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> >> I don't see though how we'd link patches to bug reports and feature
>> >> specs, do we have a way for that? IME is very useful when you dive
>> >> into a new codebase, to be able get to the rationale of changes when
>> >> it didn't got fully into the commit message.
>> >
>> > Reject (NAK) the patch until the commit message contains this detail.e
>>
>> This I had clear, I'm just wondering if it could be done easier for
>> the submitter, as git bz does.
>
> Ah, then what you want is the back-link: finding the patch from the bug
> tracker.

That's not bad to have, but I was referring to the opposite direction.
I often use git-blame to understand the rationale behind some code
snippet and having a link in the commit to the bugtracker helps. But I
don't think this is so important if we have at least the bug id, but
is a bit of a pain when we change bug trackers to guess the url.

> How about just pasting the link to the patchwork thread manually when
> closing the bug? It would save some developer time if we had a
> post-receive hook for updating Trac automatically when someone pushes
> the fix. GCC does this to update Bugzilla from Subversion.
>
> BTW, at the bottom of git-bz's homepage, I've found a link to this
> "possibly related article" which in fact bashes git-gz :-)
>
>  http://felipec.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/why-bugzilla-sucks-for-handling-patches/

There's people who enjoy bashing and defending their favorite tools, I
think each of us should make an effort to stay away from such useless
discussions.

Regards,

Tomeu

> --
>   // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
>  \X/  Sugar Labs       - http://sugarlabs.org/
>
>