Why do we recommend to send a patch initially as draft?
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/
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 22:30 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@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@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Roy Golan <rgolan@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 22:30 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@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@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sep 19, 2017 01:22, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme@redhat.com> wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Roy Golan <rgolan@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 22:30 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@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@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 08:26 Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 2017 01:22, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Roy Golan <rgolan@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 22:30 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@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@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
participants (4)
-
Eyal Edri -
Greg Sheremeta -
Roy Golan -
Yaniv Kaul