From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89658C48BE6 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:47:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7288C61209 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:47:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231463AbhFPRtj (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 13:49:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41716 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230350AbhFPRtj (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 13:49:39 -0400 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:4433::2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76828C061574 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ltZdR-007hku-TE; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 19:47:29 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Github PR bot questions From: Johannes Berg To: Konstantin Ryabitsev , users@linux.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 19:47:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20210616171813.bwvu6mtl4ltotf7p@nitro.local> References: <20210616171813.bwvu6mtl4ltotf7p@nitro.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2021-06-16 at 13:18 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > - the bot should (eventually) be clever enough to automatically track v1..vX >   on pull request updates, assuming the API makes it straightforward > - We can *probably* track when patch series get applied and auto-close pull >   requests that are accepted -- but it's not going to be perfect (we'd >   basically be using git-patch-id to match commits to pull requests). Or is it >   better to auto-close the pull request right after it's sent to the list with >   a message like "thank you, please monitor your email for the rest of the >   process"? The latter is much easier for me, of course. :) Those two conflict, no? I mean, if you close it, then there won't really be a v2/vX? Given that many (if not most) patch series require a v2 or more, it would seem closing it immediately would be a bit confusing, and then what do you even do to get a v2? johannes