[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yw1xzivbdznl.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:50:38 +0000
From: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To: Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: ethernet: support "fixed-link" DT node on nb8800 driver
Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net> writes:
>>> By the way, I know some people like the command line, email, etc. but
>>> there ought to be other tools better suited for patch review...
>>
>> Some kernel subsystems use http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/ to track status
>> of various patches.
>>
>
> Thanks, I see that netdev is part of it, and that the patches are there:
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/580217/
>
> seems like a slight layer over plain email and mailinglists; I was
> thinking of something more in the line of
> https://www.gerritcodereview.com/
> I believe Google uses Gerrit for Android.
> I think Gerrit would probably be too big (and being written in Java,
> using Prolog and other DSLs, implementing its own Git server in Java,
> etc, may make some -or lots?- of kernel developers cry :-) )
> However, in Gerrit it is easier to know where in the "review" process
> we are, because people have to explicitly give a score "+/- X" when
> commenting on a patch.
> Also, the diff can operate between different versions of the patches
> themselves to see if the inlined comments were addressed.
Gerrit has some merits, but for seasoned developers it's largely a
nuisance. It's probably good at keeping junior/undisciplined developers
from doing too much damage by strictly enforcing a cumbersome process.
--
Måns Rullgård
Powered by blists - more mailing lists