From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: glitch in patchwork?
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 11:32:47 +0000
Message-ID: <39B30904-6037-410C-87CA-ECF93772C8B5@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <790d1abd-a493-6265-4b22-ace8c8f6a734@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2447551678861890616=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============2447551678861890616==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Paul,

This does happen sometimes, indeed.

Mostly it happens with any patches that contain non-ascii characters.

Patchwork calculates a hash over a patch and stores that hash in its database=
. We then calculate hashes for all commits and use those to find any patches =
in the database. When there are any funny characters in it, it does not seem =
to work.

I would consider this a bug in Patchwork, but did not have the time to invest=
igate, yet.

So, those patches need to be manually marked as Staged or Merged.

-Michael

> On 24 Nov 2022, at 00:42, Paul Simmons <mbatranch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Hey, All.
>=20
> I've noticed occasional discrepancies in PATCHWORK.
>=20
> For example, https://patchwork.ipfire.org/project/ipfire/patch/202211082009=
11.11156-1-robin.roevens(a)disroot.org/ status displays as "New", but was com=
mitted as https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3De47370a16=
7869da39c5962ff9f9f032d7bd995ee
>=20
> This isn't a show stopper, but I thought I should point it out.
>=20
> Thanks, and happy coding,
> Paul
>=20
> --=20
> As I=E2=80=99ve gotten older, people think I=E2=80=99ve become lazy.  The t=
ruth is I=E2=80=99m just being more energy efficient.
>=20


--===============2447551678861890616==--