DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
To: Jerin Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>, dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.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>
Cc: "techboard@dpdk.org" <techboard@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestion to improve the code review
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 10:59:42 +0100
Message-ID: <d4275f55-29f1-5adb-dea5-d979c482cc07@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR18MB24244136BA2220B3A60AFC0EC8B10@BYAPR18MB2424.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>

On 27-May-20 10:28 AM, 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/

The "which patches should i review first" button is a huge +1000 from 
me, as this has been a big issue i've had with current workflow for a 
long time. Thomas has mentioned "Cc:" as a "fine grained" system to 
assign patches, but the truth is, CC is not a good way of doing it 
because i get CC'd in all kinds of stuff, and the important patches get 

That said, i don't think it's that easy, because more often than not, 
patches touch a lot of different areas, so a one line change in meson, a 
test and a line in EAL gets half of DPDK maintainers CC'd into the 
patch. I wonder if there is a mechanism for some kind of "threshold" for 
assigning people to the patch - i.e. if a one-liner is half of the 
changes in the patch, then maintainer gets CC'd, but if a one-liner is 
just one of a thousand other unrelated lines, then perhaps there's no 
need to CC the maintainer... or something along those lines :) there's a 
machine learning project in here somewhere :D


  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-27  9:59 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 [this message]
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
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=d4275f55-29f1-5adb-dea5-d979c482cc07@intel.com \
    --to=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.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