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
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