Hi,
this came up on IRC again, but I think the issue requires wider discussion: Several people asked if gerrit mails can be moved to a separate mailing list to reduce the "mechanic" noise.
We're highly flexible there, so we can keep it like it is, reduce the number of mail types, send different types to different lists, ...
One proposal was to move all gerrit mail to coreboot-gerrit@ or so. A variant of that could be to move all gerrit mail to coreboot-gerrit@ except for the "change merged to master" mails, so people have an easier overview on what happens in our main branch.
So asking generally: Do you like it the way it is, or do you think it should change, and how?
Patrick
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Patrick Georgi patrick@georgi-clan.de wrote:
Hi,
this came up on IRC again, but I think the issue requires wider discussion: Several people asked if gerrit mails can be moved to a separate mailing list to reduce the "mechanic" noise.
We're highly flexible there, so we can keep it like it is, reduce the number of mail types, send different types to different lists, ...
One proposal was to move all gerrit mail to coreboot-gerrit@ or so. A variant of that could be to move all gerrit mail to coreboot-gerrit@ except for the "change merged to master" mails, so people have an easier overview on what happens in our main branch.
So asking generally: Do you like it the way it is, or do you think it should change, and how?
Patrick
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Hello! No problems here. It actually does not matter to me. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:04:19PM +0100, Patrick Georgi wrote:
Hi,
this came up on IRC again, but I think the issue requires wider discussion: Several people asked if gerrit mails can be moved to a separate mailing list to reduce the "mechanic" noise.
We're highly flexible there, so we can keep it like it is, reduce the number of mail types, send different types to different lists, ...
One proposal was to move all gerrit mail to coreboot-gerrit@ or so. A variant of that could be to move all gerrit mail to coreboot-gerrit@ except for the "change merged to master" mails, so people have an easier overview on what happens in our main branch.
So asking generally: Do you like it the way it is, or do you think it should change, and how?
I'd prefer if they were on a separate email list. Or, if on the same list, to be just the most important messages. Another thing that would help would be to shorten the subject line - the most important parts (the description of the patch) should be at the beginning of the subject.
Cheers, -Kevin
Hi all,
Although I filter them to separate folder, it would be good to split them to make archives somewhat less intermixed. Or as Kevin suggests leave only mail that something has been merged.
Thanks, Rudolf
although i can split the gerrit address by myself, i would still like coreboot can help to separate it.
Best wishes QingPei Wang Phone: 86+018930528086
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Rudolf Marek r.marek@assembler.cz wrote:
Hi all,
Although I filter them to separate folder, it would be good to split them to make archives somewhat less intermixed. Or as Kevin suggests leave only mail that something has been merged.
Thanks, Rudolf
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/**mailman/listinfo/coreboothttp://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:19:41PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
I'd prefer if they were on a separate email list.
Me, too.
Thanks, Ward.
On 10.03.2012 21:04, Patrick Georgi wrote:
Hi,
this came up on IRC again, but I think the issue requires wider discussion: Several people asked if gerrit mails can be moved to a separate mailing list to reduce the "mechanic" noise.
We're highly flexible there, so we can keep it like it is, reduce the number of mail types, send different types to different lists, ...
For me the annoying thing is that gerrit is not fully integrated into the mailing list and vice versa, too. Review done on the gerrit web page is not mirrored to the mailing list and reviews done on the mailing list gerrit will not be aware of. So it would be nice to see the reviews done on the gerrit web page as emails on a mailing list, too.
Another point, already mentioned, would be to give those "patch set updated" emails some more value. When I push an update to git, gerrit already tells me what has changed (i.e., only rebased or subject changed or files, too). It would be nice to at least get this information from the gerrit web site and from the emails, too; interdiff would be a bonus. Non-updates, i.e. unchanged commits of a series, should have no effect at all - no email, no new patch set. It just "destroys" previous reviews. But I guess this would require some changes to the gerrit code base?!
As those proposed changes would even increase the gerrit email traffic I'd love to have those on a separate mailing list. Not because I'm unable to filter my emails but to avoid making new subscribers uncertain about the intend of the mailing list. To much automated traffic might make them skip the lurking phase and just pass on to another project. Developers instead, should clearly subscribe to the gerrit mailing list to get updates about the currently ongoing changes. Mirroring gerrit merge emails to the coreboot mailing list is also a good idea, as newcomers will get an idea of the ongoing development.
So, +1 for slit mailing lists.
Mathias
Am 12.03.2012 09:55, schrieb Mathias Krause:
For me the annoying thing is that gerrit is not fully integrated into the mailing list and vice versa, too. Review done on the gerrit web page is not mirrored to the mailing list and reviews done on the mailing list gerrit will not be aware of. So it would be nice to see the reviews done on the gerrit web page as emails on a mailing list, too.
That would require covering the other route (mail to gerrit) as well, which quickly gets ugly (mail is unstructured data).
gerrit is not a mailing list frontend - we had that with patchwork and it didn't work for us.
Another point, already mentioned, would be to give those "patch set updated" emails some more value. When I push an update to git, gerrit already tells me what has changed (i.e., only rebased or subject changed or files, too). It would be nice to at least get this information from the gerrit web site and from the emails, too; interdiff would be a bonus.
Smarter diff handling would be nice, yes. There are some clues that it might be worked on in gerrit, but nothing definite.
Non-updates, i.e. unchanged commits of a series, should have no effect at all - no email, no new patch set. It just "destroys" previous reviews. But I guess this would require some changes to the gerrit code base?!
Skipping emails for non-changes might work. Even now, though that would require some manual postprocessing with interdiff to see if there are any relevant changes. It definitely would be easier if interdiff-like functionality ends up in gerrit.
Skipping creation of patch sets breaks the mapping of gerrit patch sets to git commits. Right now, every gerrit "patchset" can be uniquely identified in the repository.
Once there are multiple git commits (and those change all the time for the tiniest reasons in the metadata, eg. commit date, which is different from the visible date), we'd lose this.
Patrick
-
Gregg Levine -
Kevin O'Connor -
Mathias Krause -
Patrick Georgi -
QingPei Wang -
Rudolf Marek -
Ward Vandewege