On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 4:40 PM Eric Engestrom <e...@engestrom.ch> wrote: > > On Saturday, 2019-06-29 22:59:21 +0200, apinheiro wrote: > > > > On 29/6/19 2:30, Rob Clark wrote: > > > I had interpreted it as literally the "block the gitlab merge button" > > > option, ie. "I want to get feedback but it is not ready to merge and > > > I'll drop the WIP tag when I think it is".. > > > > > > > > > > (comments inline) > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:12 PM Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: > > > > After a conversation yesterday with a couple of the other Intel devs, > > > > I've come to the conclusion that *everyone* interprets WIP to mean > > > > something different. I heard no less than four interpretations. > > > > > > > > * This series is good. It hasn't been reviewed, so don't click "merge." > > > isn't that the point of a MR.. doesn't seem like a reason for "WIP" > > > > > > I agree with Rob here. What I understand of WIP is that there is some reason > > that prevents a MR to be merged, even if I still want it to be reviewed, or > > if it is fully reviewed. For example, I send a MR with patches that I think > > that are correct, so people can start to review it. But on a rebase, I found > > that the branch causes regressions on piglit/cts/whatever. I still think > > that the patches are correct, but those regressions need to be investigated > > before pushing. So I just add a WIP on the MR to prevent to be merged by > > mistake. > > Kind of just saying "+1" here, but yeah that's also my understanding of "WIP". >
A help page in our gitlab instance [1] suggests a more relaxed/broader usage of the WIP tag. So, I had been using WIP to block accidental merges that don't meet the usual merge criteria (e.g., the code isn't ready or it lacks reviewed-by tags). I don't mind avoiding it on MRs that are gated only on the review tags. 1. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/help/user/project/merge_requests/work_in_progress_merge_requests.md > > > > > > > > > * This series has some sketchy bits. It probably isn't ready for review > > > > unless you've been tagged for design feedback. > > > I guess I'd also use WIP for "I want some early feedback, but it isn't > > > ready yet".. but in this case I'd also poke people who I wanted to > > > look at it > > > > > > I thought that in this case RFC was used. Or RFC was dropped on gitlab MRs? > > Agreed; and "RFC" is definitely being used: > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests?state=all&search=RFC > > Adding "WIP" as well prevents accidental merging, so it makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > * This series has been reviewed. Incorporation of detailed feedback is > > > > in progress, but it's going to take some time. > > > I suppose also a case for "WIP".. > > > > > > > * This series is good, but there are some questionable patches at the > > > > end. > > > I guess in this case, I'd reform things into multiple MR's, one with > > > the parts ready to go, and one w/ the remaining WIP bits > > > > > > BR, > > > -R > > > > > > > Due to this lack of common understanding, we discovered at least one MR > > > > that was ready to go but had been ignored for months. :( This makes me > > > > wonder if other MRs have similarly languished for no good reason. > > > > > > > > Can we formulate some guidelines for how people should apply WIP to > > > > their MRs and how people should interpret WIP when they see it on an MR? > > Once we reach a consensus, we should write it down in > docs/submittingpatches.html Agreed. -Nanley > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
