[U-Boot] u-boot gerrit server

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 07:00:09PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 06:30:00PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 06:06:49PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 03:14:13PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> >> > [snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> What I think it'd be possible to get working would be:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Custodians would have Submit rights
> >> >> >> Custodians would have +2 review rights
> >> >> >> "Normal" people would have +1 review rights
> >> >> >> CI system could have the +1 for verified
> >> >> >> Single tree
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So essentially custodians could be assigned using some keyword, file
> >> >> >> matching and other clever heuristics, but it'd give freedom for them
> >> >> >> to 'drop' their review need or add someone else. Once they submit a
> >> >> >> change it goes straight to 'master' branch.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This easy the merging of stuff but this ends with the sub-trees.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This sounds like a first good step to me.  It's important that things
> >> >> > get reviewed and everyone seems to be able to see the difference between
> >> >> > "this is a small change to $subsystem driver for $soc, $soc custodian
> >> >> > can just push it" and "this is a big change, $subsystem custodian should
> >> >> > speak up too".  But I still want a final say on when things are able to
> >> >> > be merged into master
> >> >>
> >> >> In this case, you could be the only one with 'submit' rights. So
> >> >> everything would be just 'awaiting' for submit.
> >> >
> >> > And custodian should still be able to easily pull together a list of
> >> > stuff they're happy with, change sets I guess?
> >>
> >> You can pull the 'patchsets' but the workflow I often see is that when
> >> the changes are approved they go  to 'master' right away.
> >>
> >> The main drawback I see is that the 'custodian' gets the power to
> >> merge stuff direct in master. At same time, we get a more 'complete'
> >> master and this avoids subsystems being tested late in the release
> >> cycle.
> >>
> >> I think it radically change the workflow but I've been using it for a
> >> while in internal projects, customers and partners and it works quite
> >> well.
> >
> > So long as we can plug a reasonable mount of CI in, this might not be
> > too bad, honestly.  The big problems I find with custodian PRs are "oh,
> > when I threw this through the everything-matrix, $board broke that you
> > didn't try".
> 
> In fact I think every commit could be 'forced' to have the 'Verified'
> vote set by the CI. So we couldn't push anything which fail.

True.  But can we also setup levels of CI?  Make everything pass the 1
ARM 1 PowerPC, 1 MIPS, x86, sandbox build-test, optionally make others
(the merge request equivalents) have to build all ARM, all PowerPC, all
MIPS, etc, etc.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20131114/47a4e192/attachment.pgp>