From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14C2C433E0 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:29:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B0D864E7B for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:29:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8B0D864E7B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DZCgX1VTZzDvWj for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 04:29:12 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com (client-ip=134.134.136.126; helo=mga18.intel.com; envelope-from=jason.m.bills@linux.intel.com; receiver=) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DZCdv0PxWzDr6P for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 04:27:45 +1100 (AEDT) IronPort-SDR: 4G1Y3QIZMzTnTgosaDj+1cc3aLw4K/r9Vj4/bGYCQazuuB0C2TdmimT87I9fmr0o/zJrTwIKpp Ece5CLMVL+lA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9889"; a="169430251" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,162,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="169430251" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Feb 2021 09:27:42 -0800 IronPort-SDR: gXnNl02Pau+O+xJ7JYSPPxVMNGz9SZwmS9t0zwTnYQqV9ZEtLP5k9v2b/j4TOoZNHwH+vadvtg zV9cPhKMmIIQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,162,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="418872163" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2021 09:27:41 -0800 Received: from [10.209.112.124] (jmbills-MOBL.amr.corp.intel.com [10.209.112.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1D42580428 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:27:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Making the "new repo" requests go faster To: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org References: From: "Bills, Jason M" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:27:41 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" On 2/5/2021 12:02 PM, Ed Tanous wrote: > An issue I've seen in the past with adding new repositories, is there: > 1. Isn't a clear place to push code reviews for something "new". > 2. The project quality/CI/formatting rules aren't really enforced > until after you request a repo, then push code to it. > 3. Setting up a new daemon with CI/build is non-trivial, and has sharp edges. > 4. "state of the art" build constantly changes (make -> autotools -> > cmake -> meson, clang-format, clang-tidy, shellcheck, cppcheck, > service file location, ect). > > In an effort to fix these issues and more, I'd like to propose > creating a new repository for a "new daemon" template. The hope would > be that we can centralize a single set of "current state of the art" > guidelines in such a way that they're usable more than just checking > them into documentation. Initially, template repo would contain: > > 1. A meson file, that compiles a "hello world" dbus application that > requests a name. > 2. All the relevant .clang-tidy, .clang-format, and cppcheck files > required to ensure that CI is testing as much as we can. > 3. Unit tests > 4. Pre-integrated repo CI. +1 on this. This would be very helpful for knowing how to set things up with the latest set of tools. I know in a crunch, I would tend to leave some of these things out because I don't know how to get started on them. In the future, it would also be nice to expand on the basics with some common enhancements such as build options in meson. > > The end goal of this would be that when new code is created, whomever > was looking for a new repository could push a gerrit review to this > "template repo" and the CI could ensure that it met the automated > quality requirements long before any maintainer actually reviewed it. > This would likely reduce the time it takes to propose "I want to add a > new repo" and make a procedure for doing it a lot more concrete than > sending an email to the mailing list. > > As part of this, I'd also want to deprecate and remove the .clang-tidy > and .clang-format that are present in the docs repo, and supersede > them with the files in the new repo, such that any changes to the CI > infrastructure could be proposed on the template repo first. > > FWIW, I take no credit for the above idea, I 100% stole it from James > Feist, who thought through the broad strokes of this a while back when > we were talking about how to move new initiatives along faster without > burdening maintainers. > > I'd love feedback. Do others think this worth doing? > > -Ed >