On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/11/14 7:35 PM, mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> I've seen a handful of patches submitted to Gerrit with [WIP] in the
>> title. Obviously this means "work in progress", but what does it mean
>> for reviewers of the patch? Should reviews be held off until
>> more/better patches are submitted (with help accepted)? Notification
>> that a feature is being worked on? Please help me test this?
>
> I've been using it for feature branches, to stage code that either has a
> long development cycle or needs to be tested on different machines. My take:
>
> - Reviews: If someone wants to review the code that's fine, but WIP
> implies "moving target".
>
> - Help: Always welcome, and the sort of thing that Gerrit is supposed to
> facilitate.
>
> - Notification: This is built-in as long as the commit title is
> sufficiently descriptive.
>
> - Testing: Always welcome.
>
> The early feedback I Qt IO graph (change 435) helped to direct later
> changes to the code.
>
>> If a reviewer thinks the current patch is "a good start" for a feature
>> (and worthy of current inclusion), is it okay to give the +2?
>
> I don't see why not, but he or she should probably check with the
> submitter first.
>
>> Since Gerrit doesn't seem to track multiple patches to a "feature" like
>> a Bugzilla ticket can, is the [WIP] trying to be "feature complete"
>> before submission?
>
> It does as long as a single change ID maps to a "feature". I ended up
> uploading 10 patch sets for the IO Graph.
You can also associate several changes by using the same topic name for each.
