On 21 November 2017 at 15:07, <alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:21:52AM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: >> - Document the autoselect process >>Information about about What, Why, and [ideally] How - analogous to >>the normal stable nominations. >>Insert reference to the process in the patch notification email. > > I agree with this one, and it'll definitely happen. The story behind > this is that this is all based on Julia Lawall's work which is well > documented in a published paper here: > > https://soarsmu.github.io/papers/icse12-patch.pdf > > I have modified inputs and process, but it essentially is very similar > to what's described in that paper. > > While I have no problem with sharing what I have so far, this is > still very much work in progress, and things keep constantly changing > based on comments I receive from reviewers and Greg, so I want to > reach a more stable point before trying to explain things and change > my mind the day after :) > > If anyone is really interested in seeing the guts of this mess I > currently have I can push it to github, but bear in mind that in it's > current state it's very custom to the configuration I have, and is > a borderline unreadable mix of bash scripts and LUA. > > Ideally it'll all get cleaned up and pushed anyways once I feel > comfortable with the quality of the process. > At first I would focus on What and Why. Getting that information out and publicising it via that blogs, G+, meetings, etc. is essential. Reference to the current [WIP or not] heuristics is nice but can follow-up in due time. A placeholder must be available though. >> - Make the autoselect nominations _more_ distinct than the normal stable ones. >>Maintainers will want to put more cognitive effort into the patches. > > So this came up before, and the participants of that thread agreed > that adding "AUTOSEL" in the patch prefix is sufficient. What else > would you suggest adding? > Being consistent [with existing stable nominations style] is good, but first focus* should be on making it noticeable and distinct. In other words - do _not_ be consistent. Flipping the order AUTOSEL PATCH, using WARN, NOTE or just dropping PATCH should help. People tend to read PATC..... /xx: ... last words of commit message. Additionally, different template + a big note/warning in the email body is a good idea. Say: WARNING: This patch is nominated via the autosel procedure as defined at $ref. HTH Emil * Regardless if autosel patches default to "ACK to merge" or not. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
