> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian J. Johnson <brian.john...@hpe.com> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 1:58 PM > To: r...@edk2.groups.io; pedro.falc...@gmail.com; Kinney, Michael D > <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; Leif Lindholm <l...@nuviainc.com>; Andrew Fish > (af...@apple.com) <af...@apple.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] Proposal to switch TianoCore Code Review > from email to GitHub Pull Requests on 5-24-2024 > > On 5/3/24 12:38, Pedro Falcato wrote: > > On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 7:17 PM Kinney, Michael D > > <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: r...@edk2.groups.io <r...@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Pedro Falcato > >>> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 10:51 AM > >>> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> > >>> Cc: r...@edk2.groups.io; Leif Lindholm <l...@nuviainc.com>; Andrew Fish > >>> (af...@apple.com) <af...@apple.com> > >>> Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] Proposal to switch TianoCore Code > >>> Review from email to GitHub Pull Requests on 5-24-2024 > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 6:44 PM Michael D Kinney via groups.io > >>> <michael.d.kinney=intel....@groups.io> wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> * All contributors, maintainers, and reviewers must have GitHub IDs. > >>>> * The commit message would no longer require Cc:, Reviewed-by:, Acked- > >>> by: > >>>> or Tested-by: tags. The only required tag would be Signed-off-by. > >>> > >>> I'd just like to note that losing the CC:, Reviewed-by:, etc is a big > >>> loss. Gerrit auto-adds Rb's, github PR's do not (I'd guess there's a > >>> way to pull that off with github actions, but I haven't looked). It'll > >>> be a mess if I have to go through online GH PR backlogs just to find > >>> who to CC/add-to-review. It kills the decentralized bit off of git too > >>> :) > >>> > >> > >> Can you provide more details on the impact of the loss? > > > > In my view, commits should be fairly self-describing. What changes, > > why, are obvious, but who looked at it, who reviewed it, who was cc'd > > but didn't respond, who tested are also pretty important. Git is > > supposed to be decentralized, let's not forget. If we ever migrate > > from GH, if GH ever goes down, if the links ever go down, you'll never > > be able to know who looked at it. If you're looking at an EDK2 commit > > deep into an Intel-internal fork, you won't know what "PR #478" is > > (heck, rebase-and-merge doesn't reference PRs either). > > > > Well said. That's my concern as well: TianoCore won't use GitHub > forever, and any GitHub metadata (PR numbers, GitHub IDs, bug numbers, > etc.) will become meaningless once we change. Never mind that the code > can be disassociated from the metadata simply by forking to a new > repository, as Pedro said....
There are github actions that can archive this information in a portable format such as json: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/github-archive-action > > > Side-note: How are we supposed to find the PR for a given commit? > > Searching doesn't seem to work well. For instance, I picked a random > > non-trivial commit out of the current open PRs: > > MdeModulePkg/Bus/Spi/SpiBus: Adding SpiBus Drivers. > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+MdeModulePkg%2FBu > s%2FSpi%2FSpiBus%3A+Adding+SpiBus+Drivers > > has no matches? > > > >> > >> I am curious how other GitHub projects handle this topic. I see it > > > > I don't think they do, sadly. But I also don't know many people with a > > positive opinion on GH PRs :) > > Yeah... my opinions are decidedly mixed. They are convenient, but have > some serious gaps around archiving, auditing, and versioning of review > requests. They don't even let you review the commit messages (one of > their most serious flaws!) Can you propose a process to provide review comments on the commit messages within a PR conversation? Perhaps use of keywords/tags/links to indicate the commit being discussed? Could copy/paste commit message being reviewed into PR conversation and provide feedback there. > > > <snip> > >>> It is sad that we're moving to PRs after I finally got a nice and > >>> sane(ish!) email workflow (openfw.io + b4). Otherwise, no objections, > >>> it's better than edk2.git's half-email half-PR frankenprocess. > >>> I'd guess this change only encompasses edk2.git? How about the other > >>> repos? Any timeline for those? > >> > >> The plan is to apply this to all repos, one at a time. Need to get the > >> revised process documented and working in one repo before applying to all. > > > > Gotcha, thanks! > > > > -- > Brian J. Johnson > Hewlett Packard Enterprise -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#118927): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/118927 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/105873467/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-