12:29 p.m.
Here[1]:
"Anyone can send a patch
Initially a patch should be sent as draft"
A draft is hidden from the public, why is it better to send as such?
TIA,
Y.
[1] https://www.ovirt.org/develop/dev-process/working-with-gerrit/
12:42 p.m.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 22:30 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Here[1]:
"Anyone can send a patch
Initially a patch should be sent as draft"
A draft is hidden from the public, why is it better to send as such?
I see few advantages and they all drawn from the assumption the initial
patchset is always some sort of work in progress in really most of the
cases:
1. It doesn't invoke automation and waste resources. First the developer
should run it and be passed the checkstyle/pep/other errors locally.
2. Default reviewers feature hopefully will put the reviewers in place
automatically so it not hidden.
3. After the patch is bit more mature it is worth publishing to get more
reviews. Half baked or controversial patches may be costly to review. After
they are published the reviewer can expect higher quality and can estimate
better the effort in review
IMHO we don't use this practice enough.
TIA,
Y.
[1] https://www.ovirt.org/develop/dev-process/working-with-gerrit/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
3:21 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Roy Golan <rgolan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 22:30 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Here[1]:
> "Anyone can send a patch
>
That's no longer true. We have a whitelist. [2][3]
Initially a patch should be sent as draft"
>
I think we should edit that to be more along the lines of "consider
initially posting as a draft" with guidelines to assist the decision.
A draft is hidden from the public, why is it better to send as such?
>
I've sent draft patches for 2 reasons.
1. I made progress on something and want to preserve it, but it's so WIP
that I wouldn't want anyone to see it. That might be because it could
confuse people, or it might be that the code is a prototype and/or so
terrible that I'd be embarrassed if anyone saw it :D Lately I'm more likely
to 'git format-patch | gdrive upload -' if it's something in this category.
2. I don't want to waste CI resources on something. Sometimes related to 1.
I see few advantages and they all drawn from the assumption the
initial
patchset is always some sort of work in progress in really most of the
cases:
1. It doesn't invoke automation and waste resources. First the developer
should run it and be passed the checkstyle/pep/other errors locally.
2. Default reviewers feature hopefully will put the reviewers in place
automatically so it not hidden.
Hmm, I believe the "hopefully" doesn't work. A few weeks ago I got a
notification that I had a draft to look at [because I was a default
reviewer], but when I followed the link, I received a "not found" error.
Best wishes,
Greg
[2] http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2017-February/029633.html
[3] https://ovirt-jira.atlassian.net/browse/OVIRT-1154
3. After the patch is bit more mature it is worth publishing to get
more
reviews. Half baked or controversial patches may be costly to review. After
they are published the reviewer can expect higher quality and can estimate
better the effort in review
IMHO we don't use this practice enough.
TIA,
> Y.
>
> [1] https://www.ovirt.org/develop/dev-process/working-with-gerrit/
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
10:26 p.m.
On Sep 19, 2017 01:22, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Roy Golan <rgolan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 22:30 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Here[1]:
> "Anyone can send a patch
>
That's no longer true. We have a whitelist. [2][3]
Small correction, anyone can send a patch, only people from the whitelist
can trigger CI jobs on it, for reasons discussed before, mostly security
related.
Initially a patch should be sent as draft"
>
I think we should edit that to be more along the lines of "consider
initially posting as a draft" with guidelines to assist the decision.
A draft is hidden from the public, why is it better to send as such?
>
I've sent draft patches for 2 reasons.
1. I made progress on something and want to preserve it, but it's so WIP
that I wouldn't want anyone to see it. That might be because it could
confuse people, or it might be that the code is a prototype and/or so
terrible that I'd be embarrassed if anyone saw it :D Lately I'm more likely
to 'git format-patch | gdrive upload -' if it's something in this category.
2. I don't want to waste CI resources on something. Sometimes related to 1.
I see few advantages and they all drawn from the assumption the
initial
patchset is always some sort of work in progress in really most of the
cases:
1. It doesn't invoke automation and waste resources. First the developer
should run it and be passed the checkstyle/pep/other errors locally.
2. Default reviewers feature hopefully will put the reviewers in place
automatically so it not hidden.
Hmm, I believe the "hopefully" doesn't work. A few weeks ago I got a
notification that I had a draft to look at [because I was a default
reviewer], but when I followed the link, I received a "not found" error.
Best wishes,
Greg
[2] http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2017-February/029633.html
[3] https://ovirt-jira.atlassian.net/browse/OVIRT-1154
3. After the patch is bit more mature it is worth publishing to get
more
reviews. Half baked or controversial patches may be costly to review. After
they are published the reviewer can expect higher quality and can estimate
better the effort in review
IMHO we don't use this practice enough.
TIA,
> Y.
>
> [1] https://www.ovirt.org/develop/dev-process/working-with-gerrit/
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
11 p.m.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 08:26 Eyal Edri <eedri(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 2017 01:22, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Roy Golan <rgolan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 22:30 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Here[1]:
>> "Anyone can send a patch
>>
>
That's no longer true. We have a whitelist. [2][3]
Small correction, anyone can send a patch, only people from the whitelist
can trigger CI jobs on it, for reasons discussed before, mostly security
related.
> Initially a patch should be sent as draft"
>>
>
I think we should edit that to be more along the lines of "consider
initially posting as a draft" with guidelines to assist the decision.
> A draft is hidden from the public, why is it better to send as such?
>>
>
I've sent draft patches for 2 reasons.
1. I made progress on something and want to preserve it, but it's so WIP
that I wouldn't want anyone to see it. That might be because it could
confuse people, or it might be that the code is a prototype and/or so
terrible that I'd be embarrassed if anyone saw it :D Lately I'm more likely
to 'git format-patch | gdrive upload -' if it's something in this category.
2. I don't want to waste CI resources on something. Sometimes related to 1.
> I see few advantages and they all drawn from the assumption the initial
> patchset is always some sort of work in progress in really most of the
> cases:
> 1. It doesn't invoke automation and waste resources. First the developer
> should run it and be passed the checkstyle/pep/other errors locally.
> 2. Default reviewers feature hopefully will put the reviewers in place
> automatically so it not hidden.
>
Hmm, I believe the "hopefully" doesn't work. A few weeks ago I got a
notification that I had a draft to look at [because I was a default
reviewer], but when I followed the link, I received a "not found" error.
By 'hopefully' I mean I hope people who care about certain areas stepped
forward to be listed as default reviewers.
About the draft 'not found' - If you get that all the time I think this is
a bug.
Best wishes,
Greg
[2] http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2017-February/029633.html
[3] https://ovirt-jira.atlassian.net/browse/OVIRT-1154
> 3. After the patch is bit more mature it is worth publishing to get more
> reviews. Half baked or controversial patches may be costly to review. After
> they are published the reviewer can expect higher quality and can estimate
> better the effort in review
>
> IMHO we don't use this practice enough.
>
> TIA,
>> Y.
>>
>> [1] https://www.ovirt.org/develop/dev-process/working-with-gerrit/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Devel(a)ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
2411
days inactive
2412
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Eyal Edri -
Greg Sheremeta -
Roy Golan -
Yaniv Kaul