[dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[Jerin Kollanukkaran]

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/

Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 27-May-20 10:28 AM, 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/
> 

The "which patches should i review first" button is a huge +1000 from 
me, as this has been a big issue i've had with current workflow for a 
long time. Thomas has mentioned "Cc:" as a "fine grained" system to 
assign patches, but the truth is, CC is not a good way of doing it 
because i get CC'd in all kinds of stuff, and the important patches get 
lost.

That said, i don't think it's that easy, because more often than not, 
patches touch a lot of different areas, so a one line change in meson, a 
test and a line in EAL gets half of DPDK maintainers CC'd into the 
patch. I wonder if there is a mechanism for some kind of "threshold" for 
assigning people to the patch - i.e. if a one-liner is half of the 
changes in the patch, then maintainer gets CC'd, but if a one-liner is 
just one of a thousand other unrelated lines, then perhaps there's no 
need to CC the maintainer... or something along those lines :) there's a 
machine learning project in here somewhere :D

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly

Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[Jerin Jacob]

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:29 PM Burakov, Anatoly
<anatoly.burakov@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 27-May-20 10:28 AM, 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/
> >
>
> The "which patches should i review first" button is a huge +1000 from
> me, as this has been a big issue i've had with current workflow for a
> long time. Thomas has mentioned "Cc:" as a "fine grained" system to
> assign patches, but the truth is, CC is not a good way of doing it
> because i get CC'd in all kinds of stuff, and the important patches get
> lost.
>
> That said, i don't think it's that easy, because more often than not,
> patches touch a lot of different areas, so a one line change in meson, a
> test and a line in EAL gets half of DPDK maintainers CC'd into the
> patch. I wonder if there is a mechanism for some kind of "threshold" for
> assigning people to the patch - i.e. if a one-liner is half of the
> changes in the patch, then maintainer gets CC'd, but if a one-liner is
> just one of a thousand other unrelated lines, then perhaps there's no
> need to CC the maintainer... or something along those lines :) there's a
> machine learning project in here somewhere :D

Github has a scheme on the review on Round-robin fashion if it
touching in the multiple areas.
it will be too much for patchwork. At least in patchwork, if you are
done with the review or you can assign to another code maintainer
manually.
https://help.github.com/en/github/setting-up-and-managing-organizations-and-teams/managing-code-review-assignment-for-your-team


>
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly

Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[Gaëtan Rivet]

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.

Not fond of having to log into github to do reviews, but I'll leave this
part of the discussion to the other thread.

-- 
Gaëtan

Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[Jerin Jacob]

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:38 PM Gaëtan Rivet <grive@u256.net> 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"

Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 6/2/2020 1:27 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:38 PM Gaëtan Rivet <grive@u256.net> 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?

Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[Jerin Jacob]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:27 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/2/2020 1:27 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:38 PM Gaëtan Rivet <grive@u256.net> 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/

Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 6/2/2020 5:23 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:27 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/2/2020 1:27 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:38 PM Gaëtan Rivet <grive@u256.net> 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.

Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review

[Jerin Jacob]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:39 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/2/2020 5:23 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:27 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/2/2020 1:27 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:38 PM Gaëtan Rivet <grive@u256.net> 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.

Yes. option a) is always better. Patchwork admin can only test option (a).
Looking forward for Thomas's cycles to check if he agee with this process.

Another option could be to have wrapper script for  git format-patch to
to add  -add-header using ./devtools/get-maintainer.sh script so that it
is completely automated if option (a) not viable.