Re: [dpdk-dev] Consider improving the DPDK contribution processes

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 8:52 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 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 Brørup:
> > >>> sending patches over an
> > >>> email as opposed to a well-integrated web interface workflow is so alien
> > >>> 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/Gitlab
> > >>> 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > I use GitHub as well, and I really prefer the clarity of the mail threads.
> > > GitHub reviews tend to be line-focused, messy and not discussion-friendly.
> > > I think contribution quality would be worst if using GitHub.
> >
> > I have more experience with Gitlab than Github, but i really don't see
> > it that way.
> >
> > For one, reviewing in Gitlab makes it easier to see context in which
> > changes appear. I mean, obviously, you can download the patch, apply it,
> > and then do whatever you want with it in your editor/IDE, but it's just
> > so much faster to do it right in the browser. Reviewing things with
> > proper syntax highlighting and side-by-side diff with an option to see
> > more context really makes a huge difference and is that much faster.
>
> OK
>
>
> > I would also vehemently disagree with the "clarity" argument. There is
> > enforced minimum standard of clarity of discussion in a tool such as
> > Gitlab. I'm sure you noticed that some people top-post, some
> > bottom-post. Some will remove extraneous lines of patches while some
> > will leave on comment in a 10K line patch and leave the rest as is, in
> > quotes. Some people do weird quoting where they don't actually quote but
> > just copy text verbatim, making it hard to determine where the quote
> > starts. If the thread is long enough, you'd see the same text quoted
> > over and over and over. All of that is not a problem within a single
> > 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.

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


>
>
> > And all of the above will not be a problem with a tool like
> > Gitlab/Github. There are "general" comments that can be used for general
> > discussion, and there are line-specific comments that can be used to
> > discuss certain sections of the patch. I've done this many times in many
> > reviews, and it works very well. Now, granted, I've never maintained an
> > entire repository like DPDK, so you may have a different perspective,
> > but i really don't see how long email chains have "clarity" that a
> > discussion thread with proper quoting, links to code, markdown syntax,
> > 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
> > enforces a particular git workflow, one that is not at all compatible
> > with how our community works. GitLab, on the other hand, "just works" -
> > i'm assuming GitHub is very similar)
> >
> > >
> > > There is a mailing list discussing workflow tooling:
> > >     https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/
>
>
>