On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Petri Latvala <petri.latv...@intel.com> 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.

> 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

* 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.


Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel-gfx mailing list

Reply via email to