Em Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:20:31 +0200 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 8:53 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab > <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Em Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:11:33 -0600 > > Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:18 AM Konstantin Ryabitsev > > > <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, all: > > > > > > > > I've been doing some work on the "github-pr-to-ml" bot that can monitor GitHub > > > > pull requests on a project and convert them into fully well-formed patch > > > > series. This would be a one-way operation, effectively turning Github into a > > > > fancy "git-send-email" replacement. That said, it would have the following > > > > benefits for both submitters and maintainers: > > > > > > What makes this specific to Github PRs? A Github PR is really just a > > > git branch plus a target at least to the extent we would use it here. > > > The more of this that works on just a git branch, the more widely > > > useful it would be. > > > > > > > - submitters would no longer need to navigate their way around > > > > git-format-patch, get_maintainer.pl, and git-send-email -- nor would need to > > > > have a patch-friendly outgoing mail gateway to properly contribute patches > > > > > > Presumably, the bot would rely on get_maintainer.pl or it would get > > > who to send to based on GH repo and reviewers? Without work on > > > get_maintainer.pl, I don't think it will work well beyond simple > > > cases. > > > > Some sanity test is needed, as otherwise it will end by trying to send > > the patch to a large number of people. > > I think this system needs to use get_maintainer.pl results as is and > any fixing/filtering/sanity checking needs to go into > get_maintainer.pl itself. > get_maintainer.pl is what is used by lots of contributors, the only > option for any automated systems, what is used by new contributors if > they don't use this system anyway. And even experienced developers > know internal rules only for a few subsystems and use > get_maintainer.pl when sending a one-off patch to another subsystem > (what else?). > > I don't see where we are getting if we accept get_maintainer.pl > produces bad results and needs additional fixing in every system out > there (dozens) and when used by humans. All systems would need the > same filtering/checking rules and they need to keep in sync. What a > kernel developer would even need to do to fix something (add/remove > themselves)? Go and talk to a large unknown set of systems that > duplicate the same additional rules? > > And the only way to surface actual issues with get_maintainer.pl is to > start using it. In fact it's already widely used as is, so I am not > sure it's particularly bad. I'm not saying that get_maintainer.pl produces bad result. Depending on what is done, it could produce a very large output. Let's suppose that someone do something like globally renaming a widely-used kAPI, e. g. something like: $ git ls-files|xargs sed s,mutex_,new_mutex_, -i A change like that would touch lots of subsystems, making get_maintainer.pl to spend a lot of time processing it, and producing thousands of entries (btw, we had a change somewhat similar to the above a long time ago when mutex API was introduced and most of the semaphores were converted to use mutex kAPI instead). People that use to work with github/gitlab won't care much on doing a change like that on a single patch, but this is something that won't work on a PR -> email interface - nor maintainers would like to review such big patch touching on multiple subsystems. So, a bot would need to not only check the size of the patches, but also the output of checkpatch.pl. It will also need to have a timeout to abort checkpatch.pl, not only to avoid the bot to become out of service for a long time, but also because checkpatch.pl taking more than a minute or so is a good indication that the patch is not good - as it is touching too many stuff. Thanks, Mauro
