[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/patchwork: Document the patchwork states

[Stephen Hutchinson]

On 10/22/2016 8:25 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:12:18PM +0200, Clément Bœsch wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 01:38:47PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
>>> ---
>>>  doc/patchwork | 9 +++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 doc/patchwork
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/patchwork b/doc/patchwork
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..9486e07
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/doc/patchwork
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
>>> +Patchwork states
>>> +
>>> +NEW:               Initial state of new patches
>>> +Accepted:          The patch was pushed to the main master repository
>>> +Rejected:          The patch has been rejected
>>> +Not Applicable:    The patch does not apply to the main master repository
>>> +Superseded:        A newer version of the patch has been posted
>>> +Changes Requested: The patch has been or is under review and changes have been requested
>>> +RFC:               The patch is not intended to be applied but only for comments
>>
>> no "dropped" or "invalid" state? (similar to a self rejected patch)
>
> Dropped state added
>
> anything else we need ?
>
> [...]
>

The other ones that appear in the list on Patchwork are
'Under Review', 'Deferred', and 'Awaiting Upstream'.

'Under Review' is fairly self-explanatory, but when and why
a patch should be flagged that way (as opposed to simply
remaining as 'New' until it gets committed) isn't.

'Deferred' sounds like either holding off on commit to a
later date or kicking the can to somebody else, and...

'Awaiting Upstream' isn't all that clear about its purpose -
awaiting upstream for what? Review, commit, something else
I've not thought of?  Is this the state that should be used
for patches that are queued up for commit?