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 D64F0A04FD; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:27:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8A01BF8B; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:27:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f66.google.com (mail-io1-f66.google.com [209.85.166.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47AE1BF8B; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:27:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f66.google.com with SMTP id o5so10529732iow.8; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 05:27:54 -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=LJYaHBFEFIJAYgrs4ZzRUxRiND9IAMtsbWtZb3hK4ts=; b=mtHTjyemcfiE6HOM07oFzkbu2jVVdGoYD29SYZJ60x07GyVOkvRQeSj3MyqMKWdY/J ub5mfanlHuzZvkY21N+MUUV7unUTmOIeIHcqBoHGzvJ2Q50dRannq5tYDoAZmh5JrBel E/pMbxIlpizppoXBCmBZ48FW2L/KzjPgf3HsOFx45xFbn41tQYhHWEH+ufs1VqoDHbMo 9FcsqL5bjgB+4+wuYQ91JToJgjnmOPy87MvPx6b7jqiq6CSTlb/py0Q0t0rvs1567sPR l+TMteU9Y+13OQlXTk2OQzFr6EMQY27rk8FisUQi0ihIywlMoWuNyrBgR7NV7xos0J/3 +g1g== 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=LJYaHBFEFIJAYgrs4ZzRUxRiND9IAMtsbWtZb3hK4ts=; b=CipNSeldNCHEnrhRM6OK082fXvkV3MyIiaTpMB1sDGpdCxzOUXcDwHrar9qDBwxANZ UzuRnr6mual4bHyIXgYkDN/mLittg/DIi906EMmRumFxZnNDW5eN0YzgfB99PpZOOElR m3gEyPl+asZWljRyu4vHTcPoKKa0yvU6UEzTq+HjECKEmzeRVC7KcRbTSx+roQg+zolB 8i3jC94Vka+MI3G+4BhFiJAGQQBj+qPsLOT/CUEHFcqeEAVTVkg5E4NnI2WOspxKC7ra PNXNCWNW7n7gQzELXftYebjlMZpC5fH7iI0c2mmk/3zOpwMyMxGFR+6rZuyzA/Mge0YH c65A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Ud8cpNQZtgAlPzRsrcPKjjl/eAj+uJlKpUGdgCRWxSbHZglxX T6DzHZzVYCgibxmHx5/KtlkLIpXeFYJdPy+HSgk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9ZFCtKL17Uc+2+2pyOprxYYru/5K0YikEHKO8O9cK7bKMUTKg1LgCbkaOR3zYDh4oL8K22xuySkEDBAZO2xA= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8cc1:: with SMTP id k1mr12820554iot.123.1591100874063; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 05:27:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200527100833.tuy5q66mfqfynxlf@u256.net> In-Reply-To: <20200527100833.tuy5q66mfqfynxlf@u256.net> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:57:38 +0530 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ga=C3=ABtan_Rivet?= Cc: Jerin Kollanukkaran , dpdk-dev , Thomas Monjalon , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , 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 Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:38 PM Ga=C3=ABtan 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 cur= rent workflow. > > > > > > I would like to propose GitHub "CODEOWNERS"[2] _LIKE_ scheme for DPDK w= orkflow. > > > > Current scheme: > > - When we submit a patch to ml, someone(Tree maintainer[3]) needs to ma= nually > > delegate the patch to Tree maintainer in patchwork. > > - Tree maintainer is not responsible for the review of the patch but on= ly responsible > > for merging _after_ the review. That brings the obvious question on rev= iew 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 surpr= ise on > > review responsibility and improve review traceability. > > > > Implementation of the proposed scheme: > > GitHub provides a bot for CODEOWNERS integration, Similar alternative i= s 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 introduc= ing 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"