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

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

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?