Re: [Mesa-dev] Workflow Proposal

[Jordan Justen]

Daniel Stone  writes:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:13, Jordan Justen  wrote:
>> Alyssa Rosenzweig  writes:
>> >
>> > Sorry, I'll make that point more emphatic.
>> >
>> > Upstream must do what's best for upstream without zero regard for the
>> > whims of management. Doubly so for bad management.
>>
>> If the r-b process ever had any notice from any company's management, I
>> haven't seen it. (Actually, I think most management would rather have
>> the short sighted view of skipping code review to more quickly merge
>> patches.) In terms of who to "track down", that is also a tenuous
>> connection.
>
> All of the above is true but also totally irrelevant to the actual discussion.
>
> When R-b as a metric came up at the time of the first switch, I wrote
> a really trivial Python script which used the GitLab API to scrape MR
> discussions and pull 'Reviewed-by: ...' comments out and print a
> leaderboard for number of reviewed MRs over the past calendar month.
> Adapting that to look at approvals rather than comments would cut it
> down to about 10 LoC.
>
> Whether it's Reviewed-by in the trailer or an approval, both are
> explicitly designed to be machine readable, which means it's trivial
> to turn it into a metric if you want to. Whether or not that's a good
> idea is the problem of whoever wields it.

Correct. So let's not try to play whac-a-mole/manager/evil-genius. :)

I think several people have already said that it's good to take the time
to recognize the often overlooked and thankless job of reviewing.
Potentially stripping Reviewed-by tags seems counter to that.

Adding Approved-by from the web page could be helpful to simplify
reviews for many merge-requests. But, retaining per-patch Reviewed-by is
helpful in other cases.

So hopefully we can add Approved-by *without* destroying Reviewed-by
tags in the process. I would like to be able to use either in the cases
where they make sense.

-Jordan

Re: [Mesa-dev] Workflow Proposal

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:13, Jordan Justen  wrote:
> Alyssa Rosenzweig  writes:
> >>  Upstream should do what's best for upstream, not for Intel's "unique"
> >>  management.
> >>
> >>Not sure how from Emma explaining how Rb tags were used by Intel
> >>management it came the conclusion that it were used in that way only by
> >>Intel management. Spoiler: it is not.
> >
> > Sorry, I'll make that point more emphatic.
> >
> > Upstream must do what's best for upstream without zero regard for the
> > whims of management. Doubly so for bad management.
>
> If the r-b process ever had any notice from any company's management, I
> haven't seen it. (Actually, I think most management would rather have
> the short sighted view of skipping code review to more quickly merge
> patches.) In terms of who to "track down", that is also a tenuous
> connection.

All of the above is true but also totally irrelevant to the actual discussion.

When R-b as a metric came up at the time of the first switch, I wrote
a really trivial Python script which used the GitLab API to scrape MR
discussions and pull 'Reviewed-by: ...' comments out and print a
leaderboard for number of reviewed MRs over the past calendar month.
Adapting that to look at approvals rather than comments would cut it
down to about 10 LoC.

Whether it's Reviewed-by in the trailer or an approval, both are
explicitly designed to be machine readable, which means it's trivial
to turn it into a metric if you want to. Whether or not that's a good
idea is the problem of whoever wields it.

Cheers,
Daniel

Re: [Mesa-dev] RISC-V GPU ISA Extension Effort

[Atif Zafar]

IIyes:

This is the link to our calls. The next one should be on Thursday October 28th 
at 10:00 am Pacific time:

Connection details:

Join Zoom Meeting 
https://zoom.us/j/96612339000?pwd=R3ErYVk5L1daeVc4UHlIaGJlYzVPQT09
Meeting ID: 966 1233 9000
Passcode: fkq0Fw

Best,
Atif.

From: Ilyes Gouta 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 10:15 AM
To: Atif Zafar 
Cc: mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org ; 
abel.berna...@gmail.com 
Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] RISC-V GPU ISA Extension Effort

Hi Atif,

Could you share the link to the webpage and zoom bi-weekly meeting?

Regards,
Ilyes

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 08:27 Atif Zafar 
mailto:a...@pixilica.com>> wrote:
Hello:

I represent the RISC-V GPU effort at the RISC-V Foundation and would like to 
engage with the MESA team to see if anyone may be interested in helping with 
this effort. We are working to define an ISA extension and currently working on 
a gap analysis. I would encourage you to attend our biweekly meetings on Zoom 
and join the RISC-V Foundation (its free for individuals) if interested. We 
would welcome a MESA driver for a RISC-V GPU ISA. I have CC'd our chair Abel 
Bernabeu on this as well.

Warm regards,

Atif Zafar
Vice Chair
RISC-V Graphics.

Re: [Mesa-dev] RISC-V GPU ISA Extension Effort

[Atif Zafar]

Abel would you share the Zoom link and our Github page for IIyes. Thank you so 
much.

Best
Atif.

From: Ilyes Gouta 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 10:15 AM
To: Atif Zafar 
Cc: mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org ; 
abel.berna...@gmail.com 
Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] RISC-V GPU ISA Extension Effort

Hi Atif,

Could you share the link to the webpage and zoom bi-weekly meeting?

Regards,
Ilyes

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 08:27 Atif Zafar 
mailto:a...@pixilica.com>> wrote:
Hello:

I represent the RISC-V GPU effort at the RISC-V Foundation and would like to 
engage with the MESA team to see if anyone may be interested in helping with 
this effort. We are working to define an ISA extension and currently working on 
a gap analysis. I would encourage you to attend our biweekly meetings on Zoom 
and join the RISC-V Foundation (its free for individuals) if interested. We 
would welcome a MESA driver for a RISC-V GPU ISA. I have CC'd our chair Abel 
Bernabeu on this as well.

Warm regards,

Atif Zafar
Vice Chair
RISC-V Graphics.