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 854DFA0512; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:09:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA841D169; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:09:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC4E1C1A9; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:09:25 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: fO/f8hCv+TF2XkeP5Tzz4/XW8tr7bsopHGkidixiLj/2Kh6Uu8CrpnNDSGuGuGuhabMM8oDvDg s2NFfBkGZlFg== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jun 2020 06:09:24 -0700 IronPort-SDR: 6xvwLjsAYNIMFN4SEI5wLPnfcFnlolxA0mZi1XybXa+gX8fSIFVnuMyd69fcaC+8kuooQrF2rS 3zBNJ6obrEwQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,467,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="304599292" Received: from fyigit-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.199.102]) ([10.213.199.102]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2020 06:09:20 -0700 To: Jerin Jacob Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ga=c3=abtan_Rivet?= , Jerin Kollanukkaran , dpdk-dev , Thomas Monjalon , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , Maxime Coquelin , "cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com" , "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" , "rasland@mellanox.com" , "xiaolong.ye@intel.com" , "ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" , "Burakov, Anatoly" , "techboard@dpdk.org" References: <20200527100833.tuy5q66mfqfynxlf@u256.net> From: Ferruh Yigit Autocrypt: addr=ferruh.yigit@intel.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFXZCFABEADCujshBOAaqPZpwShdkzkyGpJ15lmxiSr3jVMqOtQS/sB3FYLT0/d3+bvy qbL9YnlbPyRvZfnP3pXiKwkRoR1RJwEo2BOf6hxdzTmLRtGtwWzI9MwrUPj6n/ldiD58VAGQ +iR1I/z9UBUN/ZMksElA2D7Jgg7vZ78iKwNnd+vLBD6I61kVrZ45Vjo3r+pPOByUBXOUlxp9 GWEKKIrJ4eogqkVNSixN16VYK7xR+5OUkBYUO+sE6etSxCr7BahMPKxH+XPlZZjKrxciaWQb +dElz3Ab4Opl+ZT/bK2huX+W+NJBEBVzjTkhjSTjcyRdxvS1gwWRuXqAml/sh+KQjPV1PPHF YK5LcqLkle+OKTCa82OvUb7cr+ALxATIZXQkgmn+zFT8UzSS3aiBBohg3BtbTIWy51jNlYdy ezUZ4UxKSsFuUTPt+JjHQBvF7WKbmNGS3fCid5Iag4tWOfZoqiCNzxApkVugltxoc6rG2TyX CmI2rP0mQ0GOsGXA3+3c1MCdQFzdIn/5tLBZyKy4F54UFo35eOX8/g7OaE+xrgY/4bZjpxC1 1pd66AAtKb3aNXpHvIfkVV6NYloo52H+FUE5ZDPNCGD0/btFGPWmWRmkPybzColTy7fmPaGz cBcEEqHK4T0aY4UJmE7Ylvg255Kz7s6wGZe6IR3N0cKNv++O7QARAQABtCVGZXJydWggWWln aXQgPGZlcnJ1aC55aWdpdEBpbnRlbC5jb20+iQJsBBMBCgBWAhsDAh4BAheABQsJCAcDBRUK CQgLBRYCAwEABQkKqZZ8FiEE0jZTh0IuwoTjmYHH+TPrQ98TYR8FAl6ha3sXGHZrczovL2tl eXMub3BlbnBncC5vcmcACgkQ+TPrQ98TYR8uLA//QwltuFliUWe60xwmu9sY38c1DXvX67wk UryQ1WijVdIoj4H8cf/s2KtyIBjc89R254KMEfJDao/LrXqJ69KyGKXFhFPlF3VmFLsN4XiT PSfxkx8s6kHVaB3O183p4xAqnnl/ql8nJ5ph9HuwdL8CyO5/7dC/MjZ/mc4NGq5O9zk3YRGO lvdZAp5HW9VKW4iynvy7rl3tKyEqaAE62MbGyfJDH3C/nV/4+mPc8Av5rRH2hV+DBQourwuC ci6noiDP6GCNQqTh1FHYvXaN4GPMHD9DX6LtT8Fc5mL/V9i9kEVikPohlI0WJqhE+vQHFzR2 1q5nznE+pweYsBi3LXIMYpmha9oJh03dJOdKAEhkfBr6n8BWkWQMMiwfdzg20JX0o7a/iF8H 4dshBs+dXdIKzPfJhMjHxLDFNPNH8zRQkB02JceY9ESEah3wAbzTwz+e/9qQ5OyDTQjKkVOo cxC2U7CqeNt0JZi0tmuzIWrfxjAUulVhBmnceqyMOzGpSCQIkvalb6+eXsC9V1DZ4zsHZ2Mx Hi+7pCksdraXUhKdg5bOVCt8XFmx1MX4AoV3GWy6mZ4eMMvJN2hjXcrreQgG25BdCdcxKgqp e9cMbCtF+RZax8U6LkAWueJJ1QXrav1Jk5SnG8/5xANQoBQKGz+yFiWcgEs9Tpxth15o2v59 gXK5Ag0EV9ZMvgEQAKc0Db17xNqtSwEvmfp4tkddwW9XA0tWWKtY4KUdd/jijYqc3fDD54ES YpV8QWj0xK4YM0dLxnDU2IYxjEshSB1TqAatVWz9WtBYvzalsyTqMKP3w34FciuL7orXP4Ai bPtrHuIXWQOBECcVZTTOdZYGAzaYzxiAONzF9eTiwIqe9/oaOjTwTLnOarHt16QApTYQSnxD UQljeNvKYt1lZE/gAUUxNLWsYyTT+22/vU0GDUahsJxs1+f1yEr+OGrFiEAmqrzpF0lCS3f/ 3HVTU6rS9cK3glVUeaTF4+1SK5ZNO35piVQCwphmxa+dwTG/DvvHYCtgOZorTJ+OHfvCnSVj sM4kcXGjJPy3JZmUtyL9UxEbYlrffGPQI3gLXIGD5AN5XdAXFCjjaID/KR1c9RHd7Oaw0Pdc q9UtMLgM1vdX8RlDuMGPrj5sQrRVbgYHfVU/TQCk1C9KhzOwg4Ap2T3tE1umY/DqrXQgsgH7 1PXFucVjOyHMYXXugLT8YQ0gcBPHy9mZqw5mgOI5lCl6d4uCcUT0l/OEtPG/rA1lxz8ctdFB VOQOxCvwRG2QCgcJ/UTn5vlivul+cThi6ERPvjqjblLncQtRg8izj2qgmwQkvfj+h7Ex88bI 8iWtu5+I3K3LmNz/UxHBSWEmUnkg4fJlRr7oItHsZ0ia6wWQ8lQnABEBAAGJAjwEGAEKACYC GwwWIQTSNlOHQi7ChOOZgcf5M+tD3xNhHwUCXqFrngUJCKxSYAAKCRD5M+tD3xNhH3YWD/9b cUiWaHJasX+OpiuZ1Li5GG3m9aw4lR/k2lET0UPRer2Jy1JsL+uqzdkxGvPqzFTBXgx/6Byz EMa2mt6R9BCyR286s3lxVS5Bgr5JGB3EkpPcoJT3A7QOYMV95jBiiJTy78Qdzi5LrIu4tW6H o0MWUjpjdbR01cnj6EagKrDx9kAsqQTfvz4ff5JIFyKSKEHQMaz1YGHyCWhsTwqONhs0G7V2 0taQS1bGiaWND0dIBJ/u0pU998XZhmMzn765H+/MqXsyDXwoHv1rcaX/kcZIcN3sLUVcbdxA WHXOktGTQemQfEpCNuf2jeeJlp8sHmAQmV3dLS1R49h0q7hH4qOPEIvXjQebJGs5W7s2vxbA 5u5nLujmMkkfg1XHsds0u7Zdp2n200VC4GQf8vsUp6CSMgjedHeF9zKv1W4lYXpHp576ZV7T GgsEsvveAE1xvHnpV9d7ZehPuZfYlP4qgo2iutA1c0AXZLn5LPcDBgZ+KQZTzm05RU1gkx7n gL9CdTzVrYFy7Y5R+TrE9HFUnsaXaGsJwOB/emByGPQEKrupz8CZFi9pkqPuAPwjN6Wonokv ChAewHXPUadcJmCTj78Oeg9uXR6yjpxyFjx3vdijQIYgi5TEGpeTQBymLANOYxYWYOjXk+ae dYuOYKR9nbPv+2zK9pwwQ2NXbUBystaGyQ== Message-ID: <4c84b979-5da3-1e34-fa85-a91c0fca7622@intel.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:09:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review 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" On 6/2/2020 5:23 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:27 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> >> On 6/2/2020 1:27 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:38 PM Gaëtan Rivet wrote: >>>> >>>> On 27/05/20 09:28 +0000, Jerin Kollanukkaran wrote: >>>>> I think, original discussion[1] on this topic got lost in GitHub vs current workflow. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would like to propose GitHub "CODEOWNERS"[2] _LIKE_ scheme for DPDK workflow. >>>>> >>>>> Current scheme: >>>>> - When we submit a patch to ml, someone(Tree maintainer[3]) needs to manually >>>>> delegate the patch to Tree maintainer in patchwork. >>>>> - Tree maintainer is not responsible for the review of the patch but only responsible >>>>> for merging _after_ the review. That brings the obvious question on review responsibility. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Proposed scheme: >>>>> - In order to improve review ownership, IMO, it is better the CI tools delegate >>>>> the patch to the actual maintainer(who is responsible for specific code in MAINTAINERS file) >>>>> - I believe, it provides a sense of ownership, avoids last-minute surprise on >>>>> review responsibility and improve review traceability. >>>>> >>>>> Implementation of the proposed scheme: >>>>> GitHub provides a bot for CODEOWNERS integration, Similar alternative is possible with >>>>> patchwork with "auto delegation scheme" using the flowing methods: >>>>> >>>>> a) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/delegation/ >>>>> b) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/headers/ >>>>> >>>>> I think, option (a) would be relatively easy to change without introducing the new tools. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-May/168740.html >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/master/CODEOWNERS >>>>> [3] >>>>> https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> +1 from me. People would be able to list current assigned tasks through >>>> pwclient. It would help reviews IMO. >>> >>> So far no objection to this proposal. Any other thoughts from anyone? >>> especially from the code maintainers. >>> >>> Thomas, Any input as patchwork maintainer. This would boil down to the >>> following change in patchwork. >>> >>> 1) Add code maintainers are maintainers in patchwork. >>> 2) Enable existing auto delegation[1] feature of Patchwork >>> [1] >>> a) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/delegation/ >>> b) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/headers/ >>> >>> The suggested process is: >>> # When a patch gets submitted to ml, patchwork finds the code owner >>> based on the MAINTAINER file using the auto delegation feature. >>> # The code maintainer will be responsible for the "review" of that >>> patch and patch will be delegate will code owner using auto delegation >>> feature. >>> # If multiple code maintainers operate on the same patch, "each code >>> maintainer" can assign to "other code maintainer" once he is done with >>> the review. >>> # The existing review process will be followed as is, just that we are >>> adding code maintainer have primary review responsibility for the >>> patch and expressing in the patchwork. >>> # Based on the Ack's received and/or when code owner is happy with >>> changes, he/she can change the state to "Awaiting upstream" and >>> assign to respective >>> tree maintainer. >>> # Finally, Tree maintainer will merge the patch to respective tree and >>> make the state as "Accepted" >>> >> >> +1 from me, this can help maintainers to figure out patches waiting for their >> review. >> >> Did you have a chance to test auto delegation, will it work for us? > > I think, it can be done in two ways > > a) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/delegation/ > b) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/headers/ > > Option (a) need patchwork admin access and no dependency on email > client nor separate step[1]. I think, only Thomas only has access to > that. > I tested the option (b). It is not working, it is not straight forward > as we need to specific header to email[1] > Based on my debugging, Even though when I did "add-header", it is not > showing up on received email. Somewhere it is getting removed[2] > > [1] > git send-email --to dev@dpdk.org --add-header="X-Patchwork-Delegate: > ferruh.yigit@intel.com" > 0001-test-test-patch-for-checking-patchwork-auto-delegati.patch > [2] > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/70749/ > I did able add the header to the email, it worked if you gave the '--add-header' to "git format-patch" and send that patch, instead of using "git send-email" directly: http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200603130005.3709131-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com/raw X-Patchwork-Delegate: ferruh.yigit@intel.com But it didn't show up in the patchwork, not sure why. Also this way is not a good solution, instead of the sender of the patch delegating, this should be automated in the server side. I think option a) above is the way to go.