Hi Dmitry, On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:58:17PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:20 PM Shuah Khan wrote: > > On 10/11/19 2:57 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > >>> Hi, all: > >>> > >>> I would like to propose a new (large) feature to patchwork with the goal > >>> to > >>> make the process of submitting a patch easier for newbies and people > >>> generally less familiar with patch-based development. This was discussed > >>> previously on the workflows list: > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/20190930202451.GA14403@pure.paranoia.local/ > >>> > >>> How I envision this would work: > >>> > >>> - user creates an account (which requires a mail confirmation) >> - they > >>> choose a "submit patch" option from the menu > >>> - the patch submission screen has a succession of screens: > >>> > >>> 1. a screen with a single field allowing a user to paste a URL to > >>> their > >>> fork of the git repository. Once submitted, patchwork does a "git > >>> ls-remote" to attempt to get a list of refs and to verify that this is > >>> indeed a valid git repository > >> > >> s/valid git repository/valid git repository based on the kernel git tree/ > >> > >> Otherwise you might be sending out lots of emails for other projects :) > >> > >>> 2. next screen asks the user to select the ref to work from using the > >>> list obtained from the remote. Once submitted, patchwork performs a > >>> `git > >>> clone --reference` to clone the repository locally using a local fork > >>> of > >>> the same repo to minimize object transfer. This part requires that: > >>> a. patchwork project is configured with a path to a local fork, > >>> if this feature is enabled for a project > >>> b. that fork is kept current via some mechanism outside of > >>> patchwork (e.g. with grokmirror) > >>> c. there is some sanity-checking during the clone process to > >>> avoid abuse (e.g. a sane timeout, a tmpdir with limited size, etc > >>> -- other suggestions welcome) > >>> > >>> 3. next screen asks the user to pick a starting commit from the log. > >>> Once submitted, patchwork generates the patch from the commit provided > >>> to the tip of the branch selected by the user earlier, > >>> using git format-patch. > >>> > >>> 4. next screen asks the user to review the patch to make sure this is > >>> what they want to submit. Once confirmed, patchwork performs two > >>> admin-defined optional hooks: > >>> > >>> a. a hook to generate a list of cc's (e.g. get_maintainer.pl) > >>> b. a sanity check hook (e.g. checkpatch.pl) > >> > >> I will note that many "first patch" submissions are checkpatch.pl > >> cleanups for staging. When doing that, I require that they do "one > >> logical change per patch", which means that many of the individual > >> patches themselves will not be checkpatch.pl clean, because many lines > >> have multiple issues with them (tabs, spaces, format, length, etc.) > >> > >> So other than that minor thing, sounds interesting. It's hard to > >> determine just how difficult the whole "set up git and send a patch out" > >> process is for people these days given the _huge_ numbers of new > >> contributions we keep getting, and the numerous good tutorials we have > >> created that spell out exactly how to do this. > >> > >> So you might be "solving" a problem that we don't really have. It's > >> hard to tell :( > > > > I agree with this. I don't think this a problem that is worth solving. > > When a new developer wants to send a patch, they don't need to create > > any accounts. They setup their email client and send patch. > > > > We have several resources that walk them through setting up email > > clients and sending patches. checkpatch.pl can be automated with > > git hooks. > > > >>> I know this is a pretty big RFE, and I would like to hear your thoughts > >>> about this. If there is general agreement that this is doable/good idea, I > >>> may be able to come up with funding for this development as part of the > >>> overall tooling improvement proposal. > >> > >> The workflow seems sane, and matches what most people do today, with the > >> exception that it "solves" the git send-email issue, right? Is that our > >> biggest barrier? > >> > >> I would recommend interviewing some of the recent kernel mentor project > >> and outreachy applicants first, to try to determine exactly what their > >> problems, if any, were with our development process. If they say that > >> this type of tool/workflow would have saved them hours of time and > >> energy, then that's a great indication that we should try to do this. > > > > I would say considering the number of applicants to mentorship program > > and new developers it will be lot overhead to require them to create > > patchwork accounts, and it might even be hard overtime. A lot of them > > start out and drop out in the middle. With the current setup, nothing > > to cleanup. > > > > Setting up email clients and git hooks is one time task. It is the > > easiest of the learning curve for many new developers. New developers > > struggle with getting the change logs right, coding styles right, and > > responding to review comments and acting on them. > > > > These aren't something that can be automated and they just have to > > learn through experience of sending patches. > > > > My opinion based on contact with new developers as well running the > > mentorship program, I would sat this isn't something that needs > > solving. > > As one data point, I cannot send emails with git send-email anymore. > It used to work, then broke and I don't know how to fix it. Now it says: > > 5.7.8 Username and Password not accepted. Learn more at > 5.7.8 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=BadCredentials > s10sm8376885wrr.5 - gsmtp > > I suspect it has something to do with two factor auth. > So that's it: it cannot contribute to kernel right now. > I will not consider time spent fixing it as useful time investment.
Starting from an estalished working process, a change on your e-mail provider side broke your workflow. The exact same problem could happen regardless of how changes get submitted, a corporate HTTP proxy or firewall could also break HTTP-based submissions. Now, gmail being one of the largest e-mail providers, I think it's fair to consider that the kernel community should provide clear and easy to follow instructions on how to use git-send-email with gmail. In particular, with two-factor authentication being widespread, how to set it up with git-send-email should likely be described in https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/email-clients.html. Blaming it solely on the SMTP protocol is a bit of a shortcut. > Any kernel documentation that I can find for gmail, mentions config > that I am already using and that is not working: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/search.html?q=gmail&check_keywords=yes&area=default# > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/email-clients.html?highlight=gmail > > As another data point, I spoke to KP Singh at the Plumbers. He is a > "returning" kernel developer (so already did this before), he said it > took him 3 days and 52 configurations changes (all were committed to > git, so was possible to count exactly) to setup mail client properly. > And he is "staffed" to do kernel work, I would expect that most people > who don't _have_ to do kernel contributions will turn away half-way. That's very interesting information, is there any way that more details about the 52 steps could be shared ? > As another data point, several people told me that they are afraid of > sending kernel patches b/c there is so much "on you" to do right. Is that related to the submission mechanism, or to all the other things you need to get right ? > I would say that we need to aim at a process that does not require a > friendly experienced person to answer any of your questions in the > common case. Lots of people will simply not ask any questions. I fully agree with that. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork