also sprach martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net> [2010.02.04.1650 +1300]:
> - … which brings me to my second point: there are certain things
>   that patchwork can do, at least in theory:
> 
>   * mark patches accepted when they hit your (canonical) master
>     branch
>   * mark patches rfc when they hit e.g. my (canonical) next branch
>   * mark patches "under review" when they hit the all-patches (or
>     pu) branch.
> 
>   I have not yet tried any of these, and I am basing this theory
>   only on the idea that git-patch-id can come to the rescue, for
>   there is no other linkage between the patch on the mailing list
>   (and thus known to patchwork), and the commit in the repo.

Patchwork now marks patches Accepted once they hit Carl's master
branch (up to 10 minutes delay due to Cron). It uses an algorithm
similar (but not equal) to git-patch-id in that it hashes the diff.
This means that the commit message can be amended when patches are
applied/cherry-picked, but the patch itself must be verbatim.

I ran it on all history thus far and it found 99 patches.

It'll be trivial to set it up to mark other states when the
corresponding commits hit another branch.

Let me know if there are any problems, and feedback welcome.

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
"if they can get you asking the wrong questions,
 they don't have to worry about answers."
                                                     -- thomas pynchon
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net