On 6/2/2020 5:23 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:27 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> On 6/2/2020 1:27 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:38 PM Gaëtan Rivet <gr...@u256.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 27/05/20 09:28 +0000, 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/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> +1 from me. People would be able to list current assigned tasks through >>>> pwclient. It would help reviews IMO. >>> >>> So far no objection to this proposal. Any other thoughts from anyone? >>> especially from the code maintainers. >>> >>> Thomas, Any input as patchwork maintainer. This would boil down to the >>> following change in patchwork. >>> >>> 1) Add code maintainers are maintainers in patchwork. >>> 2) Enable existing auto delegation[1] feature of Patchwork >>> [1] >>> a) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/delegation/ >>> b) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/headers/ >>> >>> The suggested process is: >>> # When a patch gets submitted to ml, patchwork finds the code owner >>> based on the MAINTAINER file using the auto delegation feature. >>> # The code maintainer will be responsible for the "review" of that >>> patch and patch will be delegate will code owner using auto delegation >>> feature. >>> # If multiple code maintainers operate on the same patch, "each code >>> maintainer" can assign to "other code maintainer" once he is done with >>> the review. >>> # The existing review process will be followed as is, just that we are >>> adding code maintainer have primary review responsibility for the >>> patch and expressing in the patchwork. >>> # Based on the Ack's received and/or when code owner is happy with >>> changes, he/she can change the state to "Awaiting upstream" and >>> assign to respective >>> tree maintainer. >>> # Finally, Tree maintainer will merge the patch to respective tree and >>> make the state as "Accepted" >>> >> >> +1 from me, this can help maintainers to figure out patches waiting for their >> review. >> >> Did you have a chance to test auto delegation, will it work for us? > > I think, it can be done in two ways > > a) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/delegation/ > b) https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/headers/ > > Option (a) need patchwork admin access and no dependency on email > client nor separate step[1]. I think, only Thomas only has access to > that. > I tested the option (b). It is not working, it is not straight forward > as we need to specific header to email[1] > Based on my debugging, Even though when I did "add-header", it is not > showing up on received email. Somewhere it is getting removed[2] > > [1] > git send-email --to dev@dpdk.org --add-header="X-Patchwork-Delegate: > ferruh.yi...@intel.com" > 0001-test-test-patch-for-checking-patchwork-auto-delegati.patch > [2] > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/70749/ >
I did able add the header to the email, it worked if you gave the '--add-header' to "git format-patch" and send that patch, instead of using "git send-email" directly: http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200603130005.3709131-1-ferruh.yi...@intel.com/raw X-Patchwork-Delegate: ferruh.yi...@intel.com But it didn't show up in the patchwork, not sure why. Also this way is not a good solution, instead of the sender of the patch delegating, this should be automated in the server side. I think option a) above is the way to go.
