[ovirt-devel] Why do we recommend to send a patch initially as draft?

[Roy Golan]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 08:26 Eyal Edri <eedri at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 19, 2017 01:22, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Roy Golan <rgolan at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 22:30 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at 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 at ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Devel at ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170919/a9925020/attachment-0001.html>