On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 3:29 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 18:28 +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> Initial architecture:
>> - Paolo will do a new iteration of his fixes/improvement we
>> discussed last week
> I think I'll wait for Mat's rework to post next iteration, to avoid
> conflicts - unless others have different opinions.
> Apropos: keeping track of the pending patches is quite difficult for
> me. Do others have similar issues?
This is an issue with the way we're doing things currently.
We've been making changes based on gerrit feedback across the patch set.
This creates a couple of challenges:
1: The information about what's getting fixed is spread across different
reviews in gerrit
2: Changing things early in the series involves the extra work of
resolving conflicts and testing throughout the series
It's definitely important to improve what we're doing to keep everyone
informed about what is going on, and to make it easier to coordinate now
that we have more contributors.
> I think/hope that a more incremental approach (merge the patches
> eariler - especially bug-fixes - and ev. do follow-up if needed) could
> simplify the situation. WDYT?
I understand it is not easy to keep track.
The original idea was to merge Mat & Peter's patch-set in our repo
once they are accepted (+2) in Gerrit
Then we hope it will be easier and quicker to maintain these patches.
Do you think we could go for this approach? Or do you think it will
still be hard to keep track and maintain everything?
If we can merge the beginning of the patch set in our repo, I think it
will be much easier to coordinate our work by appending commits rather
than constantly revising the whole series. I think we're getting close to
that point, and after the pushing RFCv10 we may be in a good position to
merge the earlier patches and then focus on new commits (or commits that
can be easily squashed).