> On 27 Jul 2017, at 12:53, Daniel P. Berrange <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:39:32PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:54:08AM +0200, Victor Toso wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: >>>> Not really familiar with GitLab merge requests but on GitHub they >>>> remain open till closed so this would help with old ones. >>>> The big change on moving to full PR is the way of commenting patches. >>>> Unless PR are just used for tracking and are replicated to ML but >>>> maybe is hard to keep them consistent. I think is possible to configure >>>> PRs to send changes to ML. This would make the history persistent on >>>> the ML. >>>> >>>> Could we try for a period and see how does it go? >>> >>> +1, but how should we approach that? I think we need to move from >>> freedesktop to either gitlab or github first otherwise we can get >>> confused on what's going on. >>> >> >> Just to be sure, you are both suggesting switching to pull requests, and >> doing the reviews in gitlab web UI? >> >> The initial problem is that some reviews are not done in a timely >> manner. Being able to easily get a list of pending reviews was brought >> forward as a potential solution to this problem, and apparently, you >> both think that switching from email based reviews to a web based review >> system would help in getting more reviews faster? (iow, it would make >> you more efficient at reviewing code, and you vastly prefer that over >> email). >> >> I'm not necessarily opposed to trying things out, I'm just trying to get >> a clear view of what we are expecting to get out of the change. > > IME, if you're not getting fast enough reviews on patches, the problem > isn't usually the tools, it is the lack of reviewer bandwidth. On OpenStack > we used Gerrit for reviewers, had tonnes of pretty graphs, metrics, reports > on what reviews were stalled, how long reviews were waited for, etc, etc. > It didn't help getting reviews done in a timely manner. You still had to > go and manually "ping" people to get attention on your reviews they had > not looked at or forgotten about.
+1 on your analysis, but I the problem I heard about was not that we don’t go fast enough, but rather that some patches get dropped. > > Added to that the web UI was so inefficient to deal with (particularly for > patch series), that people ended up writing command line tools to do code > review in a "email like" user interface and then posting the results back > to gerrit. This is why I’m really advocating baby steps. Stick to mail for now, just have one shared place where we agree to post “large” things under review. I suggested pushing branches with some naming conventions because we are on freedesktop which has no merge request. If we switch to gitlab or github, a merge request or pull request would be perfectly fine. Small one-liners are usually reviewed instantly, so as Christophe pointed out, it’s probably not worth it for small things. > > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: https://berrange.com <https://berrange.com/> -o- > https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange > <https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange> :| > |: https://libvirt.org <https://libvirt.org/> -o- > https://fstop138.berrange.com <https://fstop138.berrange.com/> :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org <https://entangle-photo.org/> -o- > https://www.instagram.com/dberrange <https://www.instagram.com/dberrange> :| > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel > <https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel>
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
