From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1928AA04EF; Mon, 25 May 2020 18:29:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752581D95F; Mon, 25 May 2020 18:28:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2021D95B; Mon, 25 May 2020 18:28:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99724AAE; Mon, 25 May 2020 12:28:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 May 2020 12:28:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= h+eNzTyWN+GdBi8v9Go9gB/T4y03HITCUi5rINILbsA=; b=w8FwVomI7DQAhqCW 2rkCafw+IId3pC/9LLTipRqkfRSQymkHU5jwRbc34p8ejaMZ+E3z2gSlEGFDJ4xv EFzJy5Jko7uiFWsF55+OFjDP3FfUanwoUskf6pY8bZ/pZPPAkYmpsvP+sTEsSqDc wot8qX0fOoe/ysaql9MVnA0EUbsdpeddDAJ0ZHg24o1gkOXGcWsJZiOuUu3srwix J2/jIRUPAUijRwV+vNuXJ7ueRXT2/0tOnB6wdVBtC8hP8Vki4sXoMpzbPmq/F7GF hXQkW7Oo6C6TIWHK442H62TTiCS7d0fhpVr+Xi+DTiZlen9t2k3bLyMlJtLzAY1c oPW4FQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=h+eNzTyWN+GdBi8v9Go9gB/T4y03HITCUi5rINILb sA=; b=iTlBUv41noGXFdNg1hX8inq3Jh+iLtJZSXpWVicI/nzc5X/LYWz21Iqm4 cYqDyb+w0naxihdPJFaAbm+6DtZdxnwGu56lE3M3/kSjpUxYmzwO9EEdSiJ+FBff V0mY4Yd7jocmZEoT2hl92fj5N7A4EWtL4DiS07AjIIr/CA1qIz69iBb2KrJNryMc aiyWnnEkZfDQyX/Wi2nKD48jjhGVaD07BuTA7QeueVqgD+VK1lYPhspBirCFTDJl 44NuEZr4dQpbi3uW8hBSjvJ1OJqtx+nNvibgdIFoQ8Xm4wQjbD29rFw7JStm/4RE E2sJfeRiWcEvdTGXfgVCzjJ0nAzrw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedruddvtddguddttdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekjeeukeeuveevgfffgffgheejffdvfeeljedtffdugfetjeek gedvtddvfffgveenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdguphgukhdrohhrgh enucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptden ucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8B5233066569; Mon, 25 May 2020 12:28:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob , "Burakov, Anatoly" , Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= Cc: Maxime Coquelin , dpdk-dev , techboard@dpdk.org, "Jim St. Leger" Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 18:28:53 +0200 Message-ID: <11959277.FkLDZFFinP@thomas> In-Reply-To: <1d1c7a90-934b-3db4-b7d6-308a0ebb7ee4@intel.com> References: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C60FEA@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <6512da71-09a0-3357-27b1-58939597bcf1@redhat.com> <1d1c7a90-934b-3db4-b7d6-308a0ebb7ee4@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] Consider improving the DPDK contribution processes X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 25/05/2020 18:09, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 25-May-20 5:04 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > On 5/25/20 5:59 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > >> On 25-May-20 4:52 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >>> On 5/25/20 5:35 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > >>>> On May 25, 2020 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> My concern about clarity is the history of the discussion. > >>>>> When we post a new versions in GitHub, it's very hard to keep track > >>>>> of the history. > >>>>> As a maintainer, I need to see the history to understand what happened, > >>>>> what we are waiting for, and what should be merged. > >>>> > >>>> IMO, The complete history is available per pull request URL. > >>>> I think, Github also email notification mechanism those to prefer to see > >>>> comments in the email too. > >>>> > >>>> In addition to that, Bugzilla, patchwork, CI stuff all integrated into > >>>> one place. > >>>> I am quite impressed with vscode community collaboration. > >>>> https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/pulls > >>> > >>> Out of curiosity, just checked the git history and I'm not that > >>> impressed. For example last commit on the master branch: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/commit/2a4cecf3f2f72346d06990feeb7446b3915d6148 > >>> > >>> > >>> Commit title: " Fix #98530 " > >>> Commit message empty, no explanation on what the patch is doing. > >>> > >>> Then, let's check the the issue it is pointed to: > >>> https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/98530 > >>> > >>> Issue is created 15 minutes before the patch is being merged. All that > >>> done by the same contributor, without any review. > >>> > >> > >> Just because they do it wrong doesn't mean we can't do it right :) This > >> says more about Microsoft's lack of process around VSCode than it does > >> about Github the tool. > >> > > > > True. I was just pointing out that is not the kind of process I would > > personally want to adopt. > > > > You won't find disagreement here, but this "process" is not due to the > tool. You can just as well allow Thomas to merge stuff without any > review because he has commit rights, no Github needed - and you would be > faced with the same problem. > > So, i don't think Jerin was suggesting that we degrade our merge/commit > rules. Rather, the point was that (whatever you think of VSCode's > review/merge process) there are a lot of pull requests and there is > healthy community collaboration. I'm not saying we don't have that, Yes, recent survey said the process was fine: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/announce/2019-June/000268.html > obviously, but i have a suspicion that we'll get more of it if we lower > the barrier for entry (not the barrier for merge!). I think there is a > way to lower the secondary skill level needed to contribute to DPDK > without lowering coding/merge standards with it. About the barrier for entry, maybe it is not obvious because I don't communicate a lot about it, but please be aware that I (and other maintainers I think) are doing a lot of changes in newcomer patches to avoid asking them knowing the whole process from the beginning. Then frequent contributors get educated on the way. I think the only real barrier we have is to sign the patch with a real name and send an email to right list. The ask for SoB real name is probably what started this thread in Morten's mind. And the SoB requirement will *never* change.