[Reviewers] How to handle Phabricator patches in Patchwork

[Sean Farley]

Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> writes:

>> 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.

2.0 will have REST on by default, FYI.

> 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.

Well, the parsearchive.py could be patched to ignore X-Phabricator-*
emails. Not a big deal, I'll work with the patchwork guys to see if
they're interested in it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-reviewers/attachments/20170714/2df03b54/attachment.asc>