GNU bug report logs - #58813
can't substitute etc/teams.scm command as doc suggests

Previous Next

Full log

Message #86 received at 58813 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: ludo <at> gnu.org, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>,
 58813 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#58813: [PATCH v2] doc: Document how to use Patman for
 patches submission.
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 11:26:39 -0500

Hi Simon,

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Liliana,
>
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 at 06:29, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, dem 07.03.2023 um 18:39 +0100 schrieb Simon Tournier:
>
>>> I still think this documentation for configuring ’patman’ about
>>> “Patch management” is helpful.  I think it could be part of the
>>> manual.  If not for reasons I am missing, at least this documentation
>>> should be included in the Cookbook.
>>
>> There are two discussions here:
>>
>> 1. Should we "mandate" the use of patman?

I don't think this was ever in the discussion.  The patch series I sent
only hinted at a tool that can provide some further automation.  It's
not mandated (as in, required) at all.  git send-email works just fine
when manually pasting the output of 'etc/teams.scm cc-members
the.patch', and will continue to even if we mention the tool 'patman' in
conjunction.

[...]

> Well, I do not have a strong opinion.  On a side note, because I am
> lazy, if there is no pre-configuration that I can adapt, I will not try
> patman.

It's already there; see the .patman file at the root of the repo.
There's really not much to patman, it's a simple tool that does what it
does well (and already exists).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.