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

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

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.