New patch to review: 49493f5 T60: add volume CMOS setting

      Sven Schnelle (svens(a)stackframe.org) just uploaded a new patch set to gerrit, which you
can find at
http://review.coreboot.org/12

-gerrit

gerrit: differences between patchset iterations (was: New patch to review: 49493f5 T60: add volume CMOS setting)

[Paul Menzel]

      Dear coreboot folks,


Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 10:54 +0200 schrieb gerrit(a)coreboot.org:
  Sven Schnelle (svens(a)stackframe.org) just uploaded a
new patch set to gerrit, which you can find at
 http://review.coreboot.org/12
opening that URL I see that Sven uploaded a second iteration. How can I
see what changed regarding to the first iteration?


Thanks,

Paul

gerrit: differences between patchset iterations

[Paul Menzel]

      Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 10:18 -0400 schrieb pat-lkml:
  On 6/8/2011 7:05 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
  > Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 10:54 +0200 schrieb
gerrit(a)coreboot.org:
 > > Sven Schnelle (svens(a)stackframe.org) just uploaded a new patch set to gerrit,
which you can find at
 > > http://review.coreboot.org/12
 > opening that URL I see that Sven uploaded a second iteration. How can I
 > see what changed regarding to the first iteration?
  Change "Old Version History" to "Patch
Set 1"
Thanks, but I do not want to compare them manually but see the
differences between v1 and v2.


Thanks,

Paul

[solved] gerrit: differences between patchset iterations

[Paul Menzel]

      Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 10:46 -0400 schrieb pat-lkml:
  On 6/8/2011 10:45 AM, Paul Menzel wrote: 
 > Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 10:18 -0400 schrieb pat-lkml:
 > > On 6/8/2011 7:05 AM, Paul Menzel wrote: 
 > > > Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 10:54 +0200 schrieb gerrit(a)coreboot.org:
 > > > > Sven Schnelle (svens(a)stackframe.org) just uploaded a new patch set to
gerrit, which you can find at
 > > > > http://review.coreboot.org/12
 > > > opening that URL I see that Sven uploaded a second iteration. How can I
 > > > see what changed regarding to the first iteration?
 > > Change "Old Version History" to "Patch Set 1"
 > Thanks, but I do not want to compare them manually but see the
 > differences between v1 and v2.
  Changing this setting changes the diffs to be
incremental between
 patchsets (at least for me, changing that makes there only be 1 file
 difference, the changelog).
Thank you, I did not notice this one.


Thanks,

Paul

gerrit: differences between patchset iterations (was: New patch to review: 49493f5 T60: add volume CMOS setting)

[David Hendricks]

      On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Paul Menzel <
paulepanter(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; wrote:

  Dear coreboot folks,


 Am Mittwoch, den 08.06.2011, 10:54 +0200 schrieb gerrit(a)coreboot.org:
  Sven Schnelle (svens(a)stackframe.org) just
uploaded a new patch set to
 gerrit, which you can find at
  http://review.coreboot.org/12
 opening that URL I see that Sven uploaded a second iteration. How can I
 see what changed regarding to the first iteration?
There are a couple ways, here's one:
1. Click on a file to diff (or click on "diff all" to open each file up in a
new browser tab)
2. Click the arrow next to "Patch history" in the upper left corner
3. Choose two patch sets to diff.
4. Hit the "update" button.

-- 
David Hendricks (dhendrix)
Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.

gerrit: patch iterations in email [was: differences between patchset iterations]

[Peter Stuge]

      Paul Menzel wrote:
 
http://review.coreboot.org/12
 
 opening that URL I see that Sven uploaded a second iteration.
I think I would like to get later iterations in follow-up emails..


  How can I see what changed regarding to the first
iteration?
..probably incremental, as opposed to the full patch again.


//Peter

gerrit: patch iterations in email [was: differences between patchset iterations]

[David Hendricks]

      On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Peter Stuge <peter(a)stuge.se> wrote:

  Paul Menzel wrote:
 
http://review.coreboot.org/12
 opening that URL I see that Sven uploaded a second iteration.
 I think I would like to get later iterations in follow-up emails..
If you add yourself as a reviewer, you should get e-mails for comments and
iterations.

(Note: I haven't verified this with Coreboot's gerrit setup)

-- 
David Hendricks (dhendrix)
Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.

[coreboot] gerrit: patch iterations in email [was: differences between patchset iterations]

[Patrick Georgi]

      On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 02:16:25 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
  opening that
URL I see that Sven uploaded a second iteration.
 I think I would like to get later
iterations in follow-up emails..
I just disabled it yesterday because it spams the
list.
As David says, if you're interested in individual topics, register as 
reviewer and you'll get updates.

  How can I see
what changed regarding to the first iteration?
 ..probably incremental, as opposed
to the full patch again.
I fear that's a matter of taste.


Patrick

gerrit: patch iterations in email [was: differences between patchset iterations]

[David Hendricks]

      Necromancing this thread.

There seems to be a bit of frustration regarding the noise caused by some
recent patch sets. A quick look at the January mailing list
archive<http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2013-January/thread.h…
shows
how messy things are at the moment.

In the beginning it seemed like most people preferred to rely on e-mail
filters to filter out excessive noise. But due to recent comments, I'm
curious if it's worth re-visiting some ideas we discussed earlier about
frequency and style of patch update notifications:
- Should we continue to have gerrit send e-mails for every patch iteration?
- Can we remove the hash from the "Patch set updated" e-mails so they
appear in a single thread?
- Is there a way to make gerrit *not* send update notifications if no
actual code changes were made, for example if the patch was inserted into a
series or if the commit message was changed?
- Can we make Jenkins send less verbose messages to the IRC channel so that
it sends out one (instead of two) brief messages indicating a patch's
success or failure?

Any other thoughts?

-- 
David Hendricks (dhendrix)
Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.