On 25-May-20 4:22 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
25/05/2020 16:28, Burakov, Anatoly:
On 25-May-20 1:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
25/05/2020 13:58, Jerin Jacob:
25/05/2020 11:34, Morten Brørup:
sending patches over an
email as opposed to a well-integrated web interface workflow is so alien
to most people that it definitely does discourage new contributions.
I understand the advantages of mailing lists (vendor independence,
universal compatibility, etc.), but after doing reviews in Github/Gitlab
for a while (we use those internally), going through DPDK mailing list
and reviewing code over email fills me with existential dread, as the
process feels so manual and 19th century to me.
Agree. I had a difference in opinion when I was not using those tools.
My perspective changed after using Github and Gerrit etc.
Github pull request and integrated public CI(Travis, Shippable ,
codecov) makes collaboration easy.
Currently, in patchwork, we can not assign a patch other than the set
of maintainers.
I think, it would help the review process if the more fine-grained
owner will be responsible for specific
patch set.
The more fine-grain is achieved with Cc in mail.
But I understand not everybody knows/wants/can configure correctly
an email client. Emails are not easy for everybody, I agree.
I use GitHub as well, and I really prefer the clarity of the mail threads.
GitHub reviews tend to be line-focused, messy and not discussion-friendly.
I think contribution quality would be worst if using GitHub.
I have more experience with Gitlab than Github, but i really don't see
it that way.
For one, reviewing in Gitlab makes it easier to see context in which
changes appear. I mean, obviously, you can download the patch, apply it,
and then do whatever you want with it in your editor/IDE, but it's just
so much faster to do it right in the browser. Reviewing things with
proper syntax highlighting and side-by-side diff with an option to see
more context really makes a huge difference and is that much faster.
OK
I would also vehemently disagree with the "clarity" argument. There is
enforced minimum standard of clarity of discussion in a tool such as
Gitlab. I'm sure you noticed that some people top-post, some
bottom-post. Some will remove extraneous lines of patches while some
will leave on comment in a 10K line patch and leave the rest as is, in
quotes. Some people do weird quoting where they don't actually quote but
just copy text verbatim, making it hard to determine where the quote
starts. If the thread is long enough, you'd see the same text quoted
over and over and over. All of that is not a problem within a single
patch email, but it adds up to lots of wasted time on all sides.
Yes
My concern about clarity is the history of the discussion.
When we post a new versions in GitHub, it's very hard to keep track
of the history.
As a maintainer, I need to see the history to understand what happened,
what we are waiting for, and what should be merged.
And AFAIK you do have access to discussion for older versions of the PR,
do you not? Again, i didn't do in-depth reviews with multiple revisions
and threads on Github, but assuming Gitlab works similarly, we do have
access to that.
And all of the above will not be a problem with a tool like
Gitlab/Github. There are "general" comments that can be used for general
discussion, and there are line-specific comments that can be used to
discuss certain sections of the patch. I've done this many times in many
reviews, and it works very well. Now, granted, I've never maintained an
entire repository like DPDK, so you may have a different perspective,
but i really don't see how long email chains have "clarity" that a
discussion thread with proper quoting, links to code, markdown syntax,
etc. doesn't.
You don't have discussion threading in GitHub. Is there?
Threading is implicit when you are commenting under a line of code. Of
course this rests on an assumption that you wouldn't use a random
comment thread to bring up things from another thread, but nothing is
perfect :)
(for the record, i don't consider Gerrit to be a good tool because it
enforces a particular git workflow, one that is not at all compatible
with how our community works. GitLab, on the other hand, "just works" -
i'm assuming GitHub is very similar)
There is a mailing list discussing workflow tooling:
https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
