DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Cc: Gaëtan Rivet <grive@u256.net>,
	Jerin Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>, dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
	"cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>,
	"akhil.goyal@nxp.com" <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
	"rasland@mellanox.com" <rasland@mellanox.com>,
	"xiaolong.ye@intel.com" <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
	"ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
	"arybchenko@solarflare.com" <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
	"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
	"techboard@dpdk.org" <techboard@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:09:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4c84b979-5da3-1e34-fa85-a91c0fca7622@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1ODM9KmzfUX+cpvVR_NEkv41yap5WZkZVa6HvG4jdKhbA@mail.gmail.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"
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.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-03 13:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-27  9:28 Jerin Kollanukkaran
2020-05-27  9:59 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-27 11:27   ` Jerin Jacob
2020-05-27 10:08 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2020-06-02 12:27   ` Jerin Jacob
2020-06-02 14:57     ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-06-02 16:23       ` Jerin Jacob
2020-06-03 13:09         ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2020-06-03 13:56           ` Jerin Jacob

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4c84b979-5da3-1e34-fa85-a91c0fca7622@intel.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=grive@u256.net \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
    --cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
    --cc=rasland@mellanox.com \
    --cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git