| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
On 6/27/12 8:40 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I agree that patchsets are better than monolithic patches. Today, though, I am working on a 3-patch set and the process is driving me crazy.On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 03:24:21PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:Hi, It'd be really great if we could first improve Gerrit to handle the patch series workflow in a better way. Without such a change, pushing patch series to Gerrit is really no fun for anyone :/Yep, no argument that Gerrit could do with some improvements, but having submitted a number of non-trivial patch series to Nova, I don't think current Gerrit UI is a complete blocker to adoption. It is not ideal, but it isn't too painful if you're aware of what to look for. I think the main problem is that since the patch dependancies are not obvious in the UI, reviewers tend to miss the fact that they're reviewing a patch that's part of a series.
a) Any time Jenkins has a hiccup, I have to resubmit the entire patchset. This obscures any reviews or votes that might be attached to other patches in the set.
b) Similarly, any time I change a single patch in the set, I have to resubmit the whole set, which causes review history to be obscured, even for those patches which have not changed at all.
Case b) would be entirely solved via a fix to this: http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=71. That would also help with a) but not resolve it entirely... the best solution to a) would be a 'retrigger' button in Jenkins or a 'prompt Jenkins to re-review' button in Gerrit. The fact that people (including me) are submitting trivial edits to patches only in order to nudge Jenkins is pretty stupid.
-A
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
