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 1F0DAA04A4; Tue, 26 May 2020 11:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17401DA4E; Tue, 26 May 2020 11:33:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769881DA4D; Tue, 26 May 2020 11:33:08 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: hylGAFiCjhJgJJ87mkbqp1TdU0IMZAgdMMMUYPsFA44X1++hTJmvbAnJ3VqvkGJY3TnnW+/F2z qIimmOP5JoEg== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 May 2020 02:33:07 -0700 IronPort-SDR: Kj5MkzF3vm3EwG5AOqG2GJ2ioSkpFSEjz1cbFj7K0n73H/oJp8m5UIMGFmz81DMtnAMdGUB6+b J984mKz1gpPg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,436,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="375646132" Received: from krnacejr-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.43.93]) ([10.209.43.93]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2020 02:33:04 -0700 To: Tom Barbette , "Wiles, Keith" , Thomas Monjalon Cc: Jerin Jacob , =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=c3=b8rup?= , Maxime Coquelin , dpdk-dev , "techboard@dpdk.org" , "St Leger, Jim" References: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C60FEA@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <11959277.FkLDZFFinP@thomas> <6E257791-337C-495A-9F23-0F385E5B075F@intel.com> <8739815.gXEhDU8P3t@thomas> <3134350D-4520-49AF-8C1A-F3924527BF95@intel.com> <068c6367-b233-07f9-c038-4bddc4f48106@kth.se> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 10:33:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <068c6367-b233-07f9-c038-4bddc4f48106@kth.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] Consider improving the DPDK contribution processes 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 25-May-20 8:26 PM, Tom Barbette wrote: > > Le 25/05/2020 à 19:50, Wiles, Keith a écrit : >> >>> On May 25, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Thomas Monjalon >>> wrote: >>> >>> 25/05/2020 18:57, Wiles, Keith: >>>> On May 25, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Thomas Monjalon >>>> wrote: >>>>> 25/05/2020 18:09, Burakov, Anatoly: >>>>>> On 25-May-20 5:04 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/20 5:59 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25-May-20 4:52 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/20 5:35 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 2020 Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> Out of curiosity, just checked the git history and I'm not that >>>>>>>>> impressed. For example last commit on the master branch: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/commit/2a4cecf3f2f72346d06990feeb7446b3915d6148 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Commit title: " Fix #98530 " >>>>>>>>> Commit message empty, no explanation on what the patch is doing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then, let's check the the issue it is pointed to: >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/98530 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Issue is created 15 minutes before the patch is being merged. >>>>>>>>> All that >>>>>>>>> done by the same contributor, without any review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just because they do it wrong doesn't mean we can't do it right >>>>>>>> :) This >>>>>>>> says more about Microsoft's lack of process around VSCode than >>>>>>>> it does >>>>>>>> about Github the tool. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> True. I was just pointing out that is not the kind of process I >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> personally want to adopt. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You won't find disagreement here, but this "process" is not due to >>>>>> the >>>>>> tool. You can just as well allow Thomas to merge stuff without any >>>>>> review because he has commit rights, no Github needed - and you >>>>>> would be >>>>>> faced with the same problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, i don't think Jerin was suggesting that we degrade our >>>>>> merge/commit >>>>>> rules. Rather, the point was that (whatever you think of VSCode's >>>>>> review/merge process) there are a lot of pull requests and there is >>>>>> healthy community collaboration. I'm not saying we don't have that, >>>>> Yes, recent survey said the process was fine: >>>>>     http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/announce/2019-June/000268.html >>>> IMO the survey is not a great tool for these types of things. The >>>> tech board and others that fully understand the process should >>>> decide. From my experience using Github or Gitlab is much easy and a >>>> single tool to submit patches to a project. Anatoly and others >>>> stated it very well and we should convert IMO, as I have always >>>> stated in the past. >>>>> >>>>>> obviously, but i have a suspicion that we'll get more of it if we >>>>>> lower >>>>>> the barrier for entry (not the barrier for merge!). I think there >>>>>> is a >>>>>> way to lower the secondary skill level needed to contribute to DPDK >>>>>> without lowering coding/merge standards with it. >>>>> About the barrier for entry, maybe it is not obvious because I don't >>>>> communicate a lot about it, but please be aware that I (and other >>>>> maintainers I think) are doing a lot of changes in newcomer patches >>>>> to avoid asking them knowing the whole process from the beginning. >>>>> Then frequent contributors get educated on the way. >>>>> >>>>> I think the only real barrier we have is to sign the patch >>>>> with a real name and send an email to right list. >>>>> The ask for SoB real name is probably what started this thread >>>>> in Morten's mind. And the SoB requirement will *never* change. >>>> Would it not free up your time and energies by have the tools >>>> do most of the work. then you can focus on what matters the patch >>>> and developing more features? >>> No, GitHub is not helping to track root cause and define what should >>> be backported. >>> It does not help to track Coverity issues. >>> It does not add Acks automatically (but patchwork does). >>> It does not send a notification when enough review is done (judgement >>> needed here). >>> It does not split patches when different bugs are fixed. >>> etc... >> Thanks for reading my emails and I am trying to help DPDK as a whole. >> >> All of these seem to be supported by GitHub or GitLab in one way or >> another, but other more versed in these tools can correct me. >> >> - We use Coverity and other tools attached to GitLab and they seem to >> be doing the job. I agree we will always find issues and these tools >> are not a complete answer and no tool is today. >> - Acks can be done via the merge rules (at least in GitLab FWIW not >> used GitHub much). >> - cherry-picking a merge request into multiple commit or different >> merge request appear to be supported. >> - Notifications are part of the process with merge rules if I >> understand your comment. >> >> We need to drag DPDK kicking and screaming into the year 2020 :-) > > > Maybe we could find something that allows to "git push" to the > patchwork, where it kind of appears already as a github-like > discussion?  It doesn't miss a lot to enable writing/discussion from the > website directly. > > Personnaly I've put a lot of efforts to fix simple comments, be sure > that I wrote "v2" here, sign-off there, cc-ed the right person, not mess > my dozen format-patch versions, changed only the cover letter, ... Quite > afraid of bothering that big mailing list for nothing (though It's true > people have gently helped). It would be much easier with a git push, a > fast online review of the diff, as on github/gitlab, and done. Also, > github allows online edits, and therefore allows "elders" to do small > fixes directly in the "patch". Some fixes are not worth the discussion > and the chain of mails. That's what I'm missing the most personnaly. > Doable from patchwork too I guess. The problem is, we would then have to maintain these changes to patchwork :) So despite the pain of switching should we choose to do so, i think in the long run it's easier to switch to a solution that already does support all of this and is maintained by someone else. > >> >>> But yes GitHub provides a beautiful interface, >>> and can help with reviews (even if not my taste). >>> >>> One more thing I experience sometimes, GitHub requires only one account >>> for all hosted projects, so it helps leaving quick comments in projects >>> we are not familiar with. >>> >>> >>>> There is a reasons millions of developer use one of these two tools, >>>> instead of emailing patch around. We are a fairly small project >>>> compared to Linux Kernel and we are not developing code for the >>>> Linux kernel. Some of the process like coding standard is great, but >>>> the rest is just legacy IMO and not required to get the job done. >>>> Having tools to keep track of the minutia should free up more of >>>> your time for the real development. >>>> >>>> Yes, it will be a learning curve for some and nailing down the >>>> process or rules for merge requests needs to be done. >>>> >>>> All in all it will be a huge improvement for contributors. > -- Thanks, Anatoly