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 E8E08A0516; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:23:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4F01BFE5; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:23:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-il1-f196.google.com (mail-il1-f196.google.com [209.85.166.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7877F1BF0B; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 18:23:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-il1-f196.google.com with SMTP id 18so13427154iln.9; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:23:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=olSPROaDJP21dCLmHVT0iE62/FzDPpzAcqQkiMnn+SM=; b=dK8SxDTN39o3KPPaysRADpjTiGqszMTBRzxxfOGZsJsIP2i/HLxsKHYjwelhyrGKD8 ZE7/xZCQ8fwBIt9pNY18FTBpO646GR2TUB9jQ9RTitax3BxZCIRjisO3avOKzPrAOTpy WoPOjIjDvdYVtcSrWX5d+30Z+Ch6xYzH+A4lzhRmGpdBOcDU/Z13YFeNc5D1GJa3xDH/ 52q0opt95XVxeaFoaZN3eme1UCdYR00Ud8ZotNqFF3XXTBcQykFDZktl5kxLD0K3CQQV Sh6m1DVyxygF6MWx2B2o1Vc5fHzp0bB4Wty74XciOkfUW8YxiHATtsbrvGFdnZjeT+yr Jbcg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=olSPROaDJP21dCLmHVT0iE62/FzDPpzAcqQkiMnn+SM=; b=SOGmWgz8EhbURCBllzsPt/6jW58w8UOb1BfRvNpLCnQQmoqMPXnn8dpxy57Te4lsx7 HImCeBeIlBaK4Oq+DcqwEumY8Dl347bAtqTttwEK6X+Zx5duTlAHTgDPBX5DInGqMlEM uIL5MvBGaWv0iJGHVOKSDaxjaIIIGw7kC4qKL4Ih8lLF5E1LbOYD1bZ59wKSYLQCvmwK uXe4XAuxtLgJxlhYIz6XGN8BMBauCjB94RK6e2tQfJ3gSuJOLteM2jXVYbsRAFwmKuwj 5F7lzpfujNrpSk7uIFhflluTnuz1aBouzwAYavXVxQAmqJkFSAnmcWcyWV3G5yRhUgbz bcKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ZhnoN7Q1eFUOOlPQTBYG9rPYduIl5pA8IsIAR2dRa7fx0hAit IacNd1WmHIktv9eNEsk33FAC3JYHdmdIl7kP3k4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzi1yVsTgQBTdtKoSIUr8wBCDDLWhK+zdSTYE4De+N7Wnmlg0rHpta28Pg2wk2bp/RMptt7KrTfB1Bt63D3Ajg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:13f4:: with SMTP id w20mr210093ilj.294.1591115025449; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:23:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200527100833.tuy5q66mfqfynxlf@u256.net> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 21:53:29 +0530 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit 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" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 Ga=C3=ABtan Rivet wrot= e: > >> > >> On 27/05/20 09:28 +0000, Jerin Kollanukkaran wrote: > >>> I think, original discussion[1] on this topic got lost in GitHub vs c= urrent 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 r= eview responsibility. > >>> > >>> > >>> Proposed scheme: > >>> - In order to improve review ownership, IMO, it is better the CI tool= s delegate > >>> the patch to the actual maintainer(who is responsible for specific co= de in MAINTAINERS file) > >>> - I believe, it provides a sense of ownership, avoids last-minute sur= prise 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 introd= ucing 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 throug= h > >> 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 t= heir > 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=3D"X-Patchwork-Delegate: ferruh.yigit@intel.com" 0001-test-test-patch-for-checking-patchwork-auto-delegati.patch [2] http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/70749/