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 4145EA04A4; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710801D591; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay11.mail.gandi.net (relay11.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.231]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65BD1D58B; Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from u256.net (lfbn-idf2-1-566-132.w86-246.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.246.31.132]) (Authenticated sender: grive@u256.net) by relay11.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B40EA100009; Wed, 27 May 2020 10:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 12:08:33 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ga=C3=ABtan?= Rivet To: Jerin Kollanukkaran Cc: 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" Message-ID: <20200527100833.tuy5q66mfqfynxlf@u256.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: 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 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