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 B38F1A04EF; Mon, 25 May 2020 17:22:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB361D72F; Mon, 25 May 2020 17:22:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9B21D6E9; Mon, 25 May 2020 17:22:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4C15F2; Mon, 25 May 2020 11:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 May 2020 11:22:25 -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= 8ATWLaABvHcm2GX2jYmfxmNENSwD0kb7qv2qZ1kKmhw=; b=W6+96vy/Qs0twUNd JYWhY7F89NIg38ZGiLZi0xBb/IXwh8f5exlihwErH25sFFafV6BKT1iDGpQMszKu rR8A8PscHjfhh4v7sT1rAVnOYHUvi4mVRJ6CbXA3b5Npoys2U4qh4sEMzOFYp93M ZbZNACHmnW1gvTMYs/6FktWMCmO+P70gxgrbdhU3m0NuzmKhVjlGH2EC18WLEvqh Htyy2na/XDZs3VirWJnk+67Fwmc6VcAqxBxOZuCNx7FmdvTmqp/Fy7EI6KlOcabK LXyL5nWCDrvGIwKiGQxV9Fze5TsqAdSBlrUeY8F+uIXzgpnKxVu+jf7v0RSJyeYk 2fu2hA== 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=8ATWLaABvHcm2GX2jYmfxmNENSwD0kb7qv2qZ1kKm hw=; b=fwI47AZmttjQzlBjVUbMeGX9g54R/psMgVvwdzI8mMRYnprht4Ca4Aq4O Yzjo7UspCN47ATYVqgzOiLQiuRkx4BzstAgwV6pTPxCr4pYyEth+Z/OHfGO8FleA 56Ce2Lpf8d6rZ6NWWOE+rgzTXx+RhF1K6U25nE6RuPj9B4VBEL9sTjucJ2CNfBgl yxocYsLY3N5pmWzBginchYcNdjLkbdVFUTsq299w8xxt2ovCxgHjhcvQ7B3dcrP0 8X07e0GGoRz6gfIaJgXdWhwNkua3hey4VbwgHz6HdnhJZsjgKvMNtKadpxUXwkB4 cX6EdnGAkJD4igrh+WKJuKoKA0DGw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedruddvtddgkeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttddunecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepheffffejudfhlefhkeevgeevtdeuvdehieeifeejgfdvkedvveek vedtkeevuefgnecuffhomhgrihhnpehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghenucfkphepjeejrddufe egrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghi lhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth 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 AD9043066573; Mon, 25 May 2020 11:22:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , Jerin Jacob , "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org, "Jim St. Leger" Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 17:22:22 +0200 Message-ID: <3551245.iDPhyKTcbK@thomas> In-Reply-To: <354a7cf6-788b-debf-1939-541410a1099b@intel.com> References: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C60FEA@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <2346940.LZvDnYUUCF@thomas> <354a7cf6-788b-debf-1939-541410a1099b@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 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 16:28, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 25-May-20 1:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 25/05/2020 13:58, Jerin Jacob: > >> 25/05/2020 11:34, Morten Br=F8rup: > >>> sending patches over an > >>> email as opposed to a well-integrated web interface workflow is so al= ien > >>> to most people that it definitely does discourage new contributions. > >>> > >>> I understand the advantages of mailing lists (vendor independence, > >>> universal compatibility, etc.), but after doing reviews in Github/Git= lab > >>> for a while (we use those internally), going through DPDK mailing list > >>> and reviewing code over email fills me with existential dread, as the > >>> process feels so manual and 19th century to me. > >> > >> Agree. I had a difference in opinion when I was not using those tools. > >> My perspective changed after using Github and Gerrit etc. > >> > >> Github pull request and integrated public CI(Travis, Shippable , > >> codecov) makes collaboration easy. > >> Currently, in patchwork, we can not assign a patch other than the set > >> of maintainers. > >> I think, it would help the review process if the more fine-grained > >> owner will be responsible for specific > >> patch set. > >=20 > > The more fine-grain is achieved with Cc in mail. > > But I understand not everybody knows/wants/can configure correctly > > an email client. Emails are not easy for everybody, I agree. > >=20 > > I use GitHub as well, and I really prefer the clarity of the mail threa= ds. > > GitHub reviews tend to be line-focused, messy and not discussion-friend= ly. > > I think contribution quality would be worst if using GitHub. >=20 > I have more experience with Gitlab than Github, but i really don't see=20 > it that way. >=20 > For one, reviewing in Gitlab makes it easier to see context in which=20 > changes appear. I mean, obviously, you can download the patch, apply it,= =20 > and then do whatever you want with it in your editor/IDE, but it's just=20 > so much faster to do it right in the browser. Reviewing things with=20 > proper syntax highlighting and side-by-side diff with an option to see=20 > more context really makes a huge difference and is that much faster. OK > I would also vehemently disagree with the "clarity" argument. There is=20 > enforced minimum standard of clarity of discussion in a tool such as=20 > Gitlab. I'm sure you noticed that some people top-post, some=20 > bottom-post. Some will remove extraneous lines of patches while some=20 > will leave on comment in a 10K line patch and leave the rest as is, in=20 > quotes. Some people do weird quoting where they don't actually quote but= =20 > just copy text verbatim, making it hard to determine where the quote=20 > starts. If the thread is long enough, you'd see the same text quoted=20 > over and over and over. All of that is not a problem within a single=20 > patch email, but it adds up to lots of wasted time on all sides. Yes 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. > And all of the above will not be a problem with a tool like=20 > Gitlab/Github. There are "general" comments that can be used for general= =20 > discussion, and there are line-specific comments that can be used to=20 > discuss certain sections of the patch. I've done this many times in many= =20 > reviews, and it works very well. Now, granted, I've never maintained an=20 > entire repository like DPDK, so you may have a different perspective,=20 > but i really don't see how long email chains have "clarity" that a=20 > discussion thread with proper quoting, links to code, markdown syntax,=20 > etc. doesn't. You don't have discussion threading in GitHub. Is there? > (for the record, i don't consider Gerrit to be a good tool because it=20 > enforces a particular git workflow, one that is not at all compatible=20 > with how our community works. GitLab, on the other hand, "just works" -=20 > i'm assuming GitHub is very similar) >=20 > >=20 > > There is a mailing list discussing workflow tooling: > > https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/