DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
To: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
	Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
	dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
	techboard@dpdk.org, "Jim St. Leger" <jim.st.leger@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] Consider improving the DPDK contribution processes
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 18:04:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6512da71-09a0-3357-27b1-58939597bcf1@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9de4a537-b5d9-1c3f-90c4-174ca7a1b72a@intel.com>



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 Mon, May 25, 2020 at 8:52 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 25/05/2020 16:28, Burakov, Anatoly:
>>>>> On 25-May-20 1:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>> 25/05/2020 13:58, Jerin Jacob:
>>>>>>> 25/05/2020 11:34, Morten Brørup:
>>>>>>>> sending patches over an
>>>>>>>> email as opposed to a well-integrated web interface workflow is
>>>>>>>> so alien
>>>>>>>> to most people that it definitely does discourage new
>>>>>>>> contributions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand the advantages of mailing lists (vendor independence,
>>>>>>>> universal compatibility, etc.), but after doing reviews in
>>>>>>>> Github/Gitlab
>>>>>>>> for a while (we use those internally), going through DPDK
>>>>>>>> mailing list
>>>>>>>> and reviewing code over email fills me with existential dread,
>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>> process feels so manual and 19th century to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree. I had a difference in opinion when I was not using those
>>>>>>> tools.
>>>>>>> My perspective changed after using Github and Gerrit etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Github pull request and integrated public CI(Travis, Shippable ,
>>>>>>> codecov) makes collaboration easy.
>>>>>>> Currently, in patchwork, we can not assign a patch other than the
>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>> of maintainers.
>>>>>>> I think, it would help the review process if the more fine-grained
>>>>>>> owner will be responsible for specific
>>>>>>> patch set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The more fine-grain is achieved with Cc in mail.
>>>>>> But I understand not everybody knows/wants/can configure correctly
>>>>>> an email client. Emails are not easy for everybody, I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I use GitHub as well, and I really prefer the clarity of the mail
>>>>>> threads.
>>>>>> GitHub reviews tend to be line-focused, messy and not
>>>>>> discussion-friendly.
>>>>>> I think contribution quality would be worst if using GitHub.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have more experience with Gitlab than Github, but i really don't see
>>>>> it that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> For one, reviewing in Gitlab makes it easier to see context in which
>>>>> changes appear. I mean, obviously, you can download the patch,
>>>>> apply it,
>>>>> and then do whatever you want with it in your editor/IDE, but it's
>>>>> just
>>>>> so much faster to do it right in the browser. Reviewing things with
>>>>> proper syntax highlighting and side-by-side diff with an option to see
>>>>> more context really makes a huge difference and is that much faster.
>>>>
>>>> OK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I would also vehemently disagree with the "clarity" argument. There is
>>>>> enforced minimum standard of clarity of discussion in a tool such as
>>>>> Gitlab. I'm sure you noticed that some people top-post, some
>>>>> bottom-post. Some will remove extraneous lines of patches while some
>>>>> will leave on comment in a 10K line patch and leave the rest as is, in
>>>>> quotes. Some people do weird quoting where they don't actually
>>>>> quote but
>>>>> just copy text verbatim, making it hard to determine where the quote
>>>>> starts. If the thread is long enough, you'd see the same text quoted
>>>>> over and over and over. All of that is not a problem within a single
>>>>> patch email, but it adds up to lots of wasted time on all sides.
>>>>
>>>> Yes
>>>>
>>>> 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.


  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-25 16:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-25  9:34 [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2020-05-25 11:00 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-05-25 11:12 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-25 11:58   ` Jerin Jacob
2020-05-25 12:53     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-25 14:28       ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-25 14:55         ` Wiles, Keith
2020-05-25 15:22         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-25 15:35           ` Jerin Jacob
2020-05-25 15:52             ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] " Maxime Coquelin
2020-05-25 15:59               ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-25 16:04                 ` Maxime Coquelin [this message]
2020-05-25 16:09                   ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-25 16:28                     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-25 16:57                       ` Wiles, Keith
2020-05-25 17:32                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-25 17:50                           ` Wiles, Keith
     [not found]                             ` <068c6367-b233-07f9-c038-4bddc4f48106@kth.se>
2020-05-26  9:33                               ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-26 13:12                                 ` Wiles, Keith
2020-05-26 13:10                               ` Wiles, Keith
2020-05-25 18:44                       ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] Consider improving the DPDKcontribution processes Morten Brørup
2020-05-25 20:34                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-26  7:06                           ` Tom Barbette
2020-05-26  7:31                             ` Maxime Coquelin
2020-05-26  9:13                               ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-26  9:43                         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-26 10:16                           ` Jerin Jacob
2020-05-26 10:33                             ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-26 10:52                               ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-26 12:45                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-26 13:57                                   ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-26 14:01                                     ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-26 10:53                               ` Jerin Jacob
2020-05-25 16:01               ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] Consider improving the DPDK contribution processes Jerin Jacob
2020-05-25 15:43           ` [dpdk-dev] " Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-25 14:55       ` Wiles, Keith
2020-05-25 12:08   ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] " Bruce Richardson
2020-05-25 15:04     ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-05-25 15:28       ` Jerin Jacob
2020-05-25 15:47     ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-05-25 16:21       ` Bruce Richardson

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6512da71-09a0-3357-27b1-58939597bcf1@redhat.com \
    --to=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
    --cc=jim.st.leger@intel.com \
    --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    --cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).