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 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0883BC4167B for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:07:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r82U3-0003TU-Pg; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:06:55 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r82U1-0003Sh-Fu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:06:53 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r82Ty-0000Qe-1c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:06:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1701194808; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RkCS2GmREpEOsqEs0M+qBoDL85+x7MoqBRwr0DnLwRk=; b=Hg03VUk4SGvgaLC6+oiC3rqWaa3dfKfK9kwzDSw16y4GD/2YT9UGy8AHRdXV6mFVz+prvr UCWOFIW290lUmZ+OfT5+4E63OuZpPpbcWGk0MEp2mi1jH4qG6VnM9FP06T3MaLX25QKnxC hMol/Byyqn2dT7gTDKMdf+ox+zLj8yY= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-662-9OTQbcJWN3OHwZM8JC_OcQ-1; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:06:46 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 9OTQbcJWN3OHwZM8JC_OcQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B0BB3804A4D; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:06:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.132]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA8B220268DA; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:06:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:06:42 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: =?utf-8?Q?C=C3=A9dric?= Le Goater Cc: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , Peter Maydell , QEMU Developers Subject: Re: QEMU Summit Minutes 2023 Message-ID: References: <87edgjf2v4.fsf@draig.linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.10 (2023-03-25) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.4 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:54:42PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 11/21/23 18:11, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Peter Maydell writes: > > > > > QEMU Summit Minutes 2023 > > > ======================== > > > > > > As usual, we held a QEMU Summit meeting at KVM Forum. This is an > > > invite-only meeting for the most active maintainers and submaintainers > > > in the project, and we discuss various project-wide issues, usually > > > process stuff. We then post the minutes of the meeting to the list as > > > a jumping off point for wider discussion and for those who weren't > > > able to attend. > > > > > > > > > > > Topic 2: Are we happy with the email workflow? > > > ============================================== > > > > > > This was a topic to see if there was any consensus among maintainers > > > about the long-term acceptability of sticking with email for patch > > > submission and review -- in five years' time, if we're still doing it > > > the same way, how would we feel about it? > > > > > > One area where we did get consensus was that now that we're doing CI > > > on gitlab we can change pull requests from maintainers from via-email > > > to gitlab merge requests. This would hopefully mean that instead of > > > the release-manager having to tell gitlab to do a merge and then > > > reporting back the results of any CI failures, the maintainer > > > could directly see the CI results and deal with fixing up failures > > > and resubmitting without involving the release manager. (This > > > may have the disbenefit that there isn't a single person any > > > more who looks at all the CI results and gets a sense of whether > > > particular test cases have pre-existing intermittent failures.) > > > > If we are keen to start processing merge requests for the 9.0 release we > > really should consider how it is going to work before we open up the > > taps post 8.2-final going out. > > > > Does anyone want to have a go at writing an updated process for > > docs/devel/submitting-a-pull-request.rst (or I guess merge-request) so > > we can discuss it and be ready early in the cycle? Ideally someone who > > already has experience with the workflow with other gitlab hosted > > projects. If no one else beats me to it, I can try and write up something, since I'm pretty familiar with gitlab PR from libvirt & other projects. > Reading the Topic 2 paragraph above, I understand that a maintainer > of a subsystem would be able to merge its '-next' branch in the main > repository when CI is all green. Correct ? A maintainer would have their own fork of qemu-project/qemu, under their namespace, or if there are maintainers collaborating, they might have a separate group nmamespace for their subsystem. eg qemu-block-subsys/qemu, or we could use sub-groups perhaps so qemu-project/block-subsys/qemu for official subsystem trees. Anyway, when a maintainer wants to merge a tree, I would expect to have a MR opened against 'master' in qemu-project/qemu. The CI ought to then run and if it is all green, then someone would approve it to merge to master. > It seems to me that we should also have a group of people approving > the MR. Yes, while we could have one designated gate keeper approving all MRs, that would defeat some of the benefit of MRs. So likely would be good to have a pool, and also setup the config so that the owner of an MR is not allow to approve their own MR, to guarantee there is always a 2nd pair of eyes as sanity check. We might also need to consider enabling 'merge trains', so that we get a serialized CI run again after hte MR is approved, in case 'master' moved onwards since the initial CI pipeline when the MR was opened. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|