On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 07:33:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > 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. We've already had this, and people stopped bothering. What will be different this time around? I feel a bit like we do need to be a bit more formal here, to really make this stick ... Also, who's going to be the annoying maintainer who reminds everyone every time they break the rules? It'll take some serious effort here to get folks off their well-trodded paths onto a new one I think. -Daniel > > 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 -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
