On 2012年04月16日 10:18, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:59:32PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 09:30:45AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/13/2012 09:16 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
This is based on recent developments on patch checker and the goal is to keep a list of pending patches needing review on the project web site. The page template in git just hold a pointer
s/hold/holds/
to the web page.
diff --git a/docs/pending.html.in b/docs/pending.html.in new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dfbe647 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/pending.html.in @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> +<title>Pending patches needing review</title> +</head> +<body> +<h1>Pending patches needing review</h1> +<p> A list of pending patches needing review upstream is available + on<a href="http://libvirt.org/pending.html">the project pending + patches page</a>.</p>
Self-referential, at least when installed on libvirt.org (but makes sense when installed locally to end-user machines). And I suppose you will eventually be changing libvirt.org's page to be generated live based on your patch checker tool. Works for me.
Yup, that's the intent, though I didn't set the crontabs yet :-) But I have put a first page there http://libvirt.org/pending.html.
Okay, that's live now, it should update 3 times a day, that seems to work from now. I could improve the XSLT stylesheet to make things more useful, for example sorting by author and then by date rather than the lengthy by date list. Opinion welcome, fixing this kind of things should be simple. Improving the list to avoid false positive is a bit harder but I'm thinking about various small improvements :-)
How to tell patchchecher not to list the patches which were not reviewed in vN (set), but finally got ACK and pushed in later vM (set)? (M > N). One idea is to mark the vN with specific tag, (especially for the patch sets which are for same purpose, but have different names between vN and vM, there is no way to do it totally automatically). And thus patchchecker could skip it, but it increases the patch authors load. And it might be better to send the not reviewed list to libvir list days before each release. The problem is we don't have a fixed release date, so it can't be done automatically. Another advise is to indent the list if the patches are in same thread, it will be much easier for eyes. :-) And a problems is the repling to the patch is also picked. e.g. http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-January/msg00971.html Osier