[Reviewers] How to handle Phabricator patches in Patchwork

[Augie Fackler]

> On Jul 13, 2017, at 16:19, Sean Farley <sean at farley.io> wrote:
> 
> 
> Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz at google.com> writes:
> 
>> I think we can just mark Phabricator patches as "not applicable". That
>> means you have to check both Phabricator and Patchwork to see what
>> needs to be reviewed, but that still seems like less work than
>> manually keeping Patchwork up to date. Agree? Augie said he can script
>> it if we agree.
> 
> Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I'm doing a bit of work on some of
> patchwork (locally) that is partially upstreamed. I might be able to
> upstream some of Augie's work, too. Just a thought / suggestion.

I don't have anything that's really upstream-sensible? All of my stuff just goes through the xmlrpc interface.

If I don't hear any objections by Tuesday or so I'll probably write a script to run in cron that'll mark phabricator stuff as archived in patchwork.

> _______________________________________________
> Reviewers mailing list
> Reviewers at mercurial-scm.org
> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/reviewers

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-reviewers/attachments/20170714/80901297/attachment.asc>