On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The current contributing docs for IGT state: > > << > There is no formal review requirement and regular contributors with > commit access can push patches right after submitting them to the > mailing lists. But invasive changes, new helper libraries and > contributions from newcomers should go through a proper review to > ensure overall consistency in the codebase. >>> > > > While not requiring reviews or acks has definitely increased the > speed of development, I feel the time for slowing down a bit has > come. Agreed. (Though a more rigorous review requirement doesn't necessarily slow things down in the big picture.) > At the very least I would like to see all commits have a visit to the > mailing list before pushing, as the current docs already ask for. The > "right after" part would be changed to a $period of quarantine, maybe > 24 hours? Sounds good to me. > As for requiring reviews or acks before pushing, how do the developers > at large feel about that? Different rules for different parts of IGT? > (Benchmarks, tools, tests, CI test sets, lib....) I think there are two big buckets here: * Tests in BAT and the BAT set list. I think we need r-b/ack on the mailing list on these changes before pushing. (In the long run, I'd like to have these go through a CI run with everything else unchanged too.) * Everything else. Other tests and tools. I'd be happy with requiring the patches are sent to the list, and either receiving r-b/ack or 24 hrs during weekdays without negative feedback. > The goal with this discussion is to reach a suitable tradeoff between > stability from CI point of view and fruitful use of programmer time. Thanks for starting the discussion. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
