On Tue, 22 Nov 2022, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 03:17:14PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >>Introduce stricter rules for topic/core-for-CI management. Way too many >>commits have been added over the years, with insufficient rationale >>recorded in the commit message, and insufficient follow-up with removing >>the commits from the topic branch. >> >>New rules: > > Why not make a list like this the actual text? It's easier to follow a > bullet/numbered list than the free form text. Gah, you want me to rewrite the text and get all acks again?! > >> >>1. Require maintainer ack for rebase. Have better gating on when rebases >> happen and on which baselines. > > What maintainer? drm-intel-gt-next/drm-intel-next/drm-misc/drm? Any? Basically any drm-intel maintainer. The branch is in drm-intel repo, and it exists at all to hotfix CI stuff like the name says. > > I don't want fingers pointed, but just to know the context: was there > any event recently that triggered this? Because the last updates I've > seen on topic/core-for-CI were not from maintainers and > looking at the branch I don't see any issue with the recent commits. > The issue actually seems to be the very old ones. I'm not sure such > a measure will actually fix the problem. > > I myself pushed recently to topic/core-for-CI so I want to know if **I** > caused any issue. This is not related to any individual commit or developer, at all. I've been meaning to do this for a very long time now. > >> >>2. Require maintainer/committer ack for adding/removing commits. No >> single individual should decide. > > s@maintainers/committer @@? Or just let it have the same requirement as > the drm-intel-* branches. It seems odd to raise the bar for > topic/core-for-CI above the requirement for drm-intel-* branches (even > though that latter is a r-b). From committer-drm-intel.rst: The bar *should* be raised for topic/core-for-CI. Yes, it's for hotfixes that can be added as well as removed, but it should never be the first option. Or the "can we just put it in core-for-CI" option. I *want* pushback to adding stuff there. > > * Reviewed-by/Acked-by/Tested-by must include the name and email of a real > person for transparency. Anyone can give these, and therefore you have to > value them according to the merits of the person. Quality matters, not > quantity. Be suspicious of rubber stamps. > > * Reviewed-by/Acked-by/Tested-by can be asked for and given informally (on the > list, IRC, in person, in a meeting) but must be added to the commit. > > * Reviewed-by. All patches must be reviewed, no exceptions. Please see > "Reviewer's statement of oversight" in `Documentation/process/submitting-patches > <https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/drm/process/submitting-patches.html>`_ > and `review training > <http://blog.ffwll.ch/2014/08/review-training-slides.html>`_. > >> >>3. Require gitlab issues for new commits added. Improve tracking for >> removing the commits. >> >>Also use the stronger "must" for commit message requiring the >>justification for the commit being in topic/core-for-CI. >> >>Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> >>Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>Cc: David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> >>Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> >>Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Cc: dim-tools@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> >>--- >> drm-tip.rst | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >>diff --git a/drm-tip.rst b/drm-tip.rst >>index deae95cdd2fe..24036e2ef576 100644 >>--- a/drm-tip.rst >>+++ b/drm-tip.rst >>@@ -203,11 +203,13 @@ justified exception. The primary goal is to fix issues originating from Linus' >> tree. Issues that would need drm-next or other DRM subsystem tree as baseline >> should be fixed in the offending DRM subsystem tree. >> >>-Only rebase the branch if you really know what you're doing. When in doubt, ask >>-the maintainers. You'll need to be able to handle any conflicts in non-drm code >>-while rebasing. >>+Only rebase the branch if you really know what you're doing. You'll need to be >>+able to handle any conflicts in non-drm code while rebasing. >> >>-Simply drop fixes that are already available in the new baseline. >>+Always ask for maintainer ack before rebasing. IRC ack is sufficient. >>+ >>+Simply drop fixes that are already available in the new baseline. Close the >>+associated gitlab issue when removing commits. >> >> Force pushing a rebased topic/core-for-CI requires passing the ``--force`` >> parameter to git:: > > there is a main issue here that is not being fixed: testing the merged > branch. I think it would be much better to have the instruction here > to rebuild drm-tip without pushing... This will use the local topic branch: > > dim -d rebuild-tip topic/core-for-CI > > It's the only way I ever update it because I don't want to push a branch > and have a small window to potentially solve the merge conflicts (while > leaving others wondering why the tip is broken). This isn't strictly related to core-for-CI, is it? Can happen with any branch. > >>@@ -225,11 +227,22 @@ judgement call. >> Only add or remove commits if you really know what you're doing. When in doubt, >> ask the maintainers. >> >>-Apply new commits on top with regular push. The commit message needs to explain >>-why the patch has been applied to topic/core-for-CI. If it's a cherry-pick from >>+Always ask for maintainer/committer ack before adding/removing commits. IRC ack >>+is sufficient. Record the ``Acked-by:`` in commits being added. >>+ >>+Apply new commits on top with regular push. The commit message must explain why >>+the patch has been applied to topic/core-for-CI. If it's a cherry-pick from >> another subsystem, please reference the commit with ``git cherry-pick -x`` >> option. If it's a patch from another subsystem, please reference the patch on >> the mailing list with ``Link:`` tag. >> >>+New commits always need an associated gitlab issue for tracking purposes. The >>+goal is to have as few commits in topic/core-for-CI as possible, and we need to >>+be able to track the progress in making that happen. Reference the issue with >>+``References:`` tag. Add the ``core-for-CI`` label to the issue. (Note: Do not >>+use ``Closes:`` because the logic here is backwards; the issue is having the >>+commit in the branch in the first place.) >>+ >> Instead of applying reverts, just remove the commit. This implies ``git rebase >>--i`` on the current baseline; see directions above. >>+-i`` on the current baseline; see directions above. Close the associated gitlab >>+issue when removing commits. > > wouldn't it be better to apply the revert and only drop the commit on > next rebase? This way it doesn't require the force push and it's easier > to see what was done in the branch since we don't have to procure the > right CI tag in which things got changed. Mmh, I guess revert could be left in as an option. > ... I actually came here to ask: wasn't gitlab supposed to be used for > patches in maintainer-tools? Was it? That's not what CONTRIBUTING.rst says. There's been talk about it, but no decisions to do so. And in any case I wanted more attention to this than gitlab pull requests would ever get. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
