Re: IGT contributions and reviews

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 07:33:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com> wrote:
>> > The current contributing docs for IGT state:
>> >
>> > <<
>> >   There is no formal review requirement and regular contributors with
>> >   commit access can push patches right after submitting them to the
>> >   mailing lists. But invasive changes, new helper libraries and
>> >   contributions from newcomers should go through a proper review to
>> >   ensure overall consistency in the codebase.
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> > While not requiring reviews or acks has definitely increased the
>> > speed of development, I feel the time for slowing down a bit has
>> > come.
>> 
>> Agreed. (Though a more rigorous review requirement doesn't necessarily
>> slow things down in the big picture.)
>> 
>> > At the very least I would like to see all commits have a visit to the
>> > mailing list before pushing, as the current docs already ask for. The
>> > "right after" part would be changed to a $period of quarantine, maybe
>> > 24 hours?
>> 
>> Sounds good to me.
>
> We've already had this, and people stopped bothering. What will be
> different this time around? I feel a bit like we do need to be a bit more
> formal here, to really make this stick ...
>
> Also, who's going to be the annoying maintainer who reminds everyone every
> time they break the rules? It'll take some serious effort here to get
> folks off their well-trodded paths onto a new one I think.

What's your concrete proposal?

BR,
Jani.


> -Daniel
>
>> > As for requiring reviews or acks before pushing, how do the developers
>> > at large feel about that? Different rules for different parts of IGT?
>> > (Benchmarks, tools, tests, CI test sets, lib....)
>> 
>> I think there are two big buckets here:
>> 
>> * Tests in BAT and the BAT set list. I think we need r-b/ack on the
>>   mailing list on these changes before pushing. (In the long run, I'd
>>   like to have these go through a CI run with everything else unchanged
>>   too.)
>> 
>> * Everything else. Other tests and tools. I'd be happy with requiring
>>   the patches are sent to the list, and either receiving r-b/ack or 24
>>   hrs during weekdays without negative feedback.
>> 
>> > The goal with this discussion is to reach a suitable tradeoff between
>> > stability from CI point of view and fruitful use of programmer time.
>> 
>> Thanks for starting the discussion.
>> 
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx