This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Last Responder Wins in Patchwork?
- From: Rical Jasan <ricaljasan at pacific dot net>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 04:36:14 -0700
- Subject: Re: Last Responder Wins in Patchwork?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <3f3c6679-dedc-a684-8f90-854a7428ec5e@pacific.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611301255370.3647@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <f4336d23-eebe-caf9-fbb4-5845dca81390@redhat.com>
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I finally had time to roam around
some more in patchwork, and have some follow up.
On 11/30/2016 06:03 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/30/2016 07:56 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Rical Jasan wrote:
>>> Why does this say I'm the submitter?
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/12829/
>>
>> Because the message it is based on is one where you included a patch.
>> Note the "I've attached the beginnings of how I would approach it" in the
>> first message shown.
Seems that even text in the message that looks like a diff incurs a
patch in patchwork:
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/20500/
That's brutal.
> Mark it RFC if that's what is is, and then re-post a new patch
> under a new thread if that's the way you want to go.
>
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Patch%20Review%20Workflow
"Not Applicable" is probably better in both the above cases, I think.
I'll be updating all my noise in the patchwork queue shortly.
Rical