Re: [PATCH i-g-t] CONTRIBUTING: formalize review rules

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t] CONTRIBUTING: formalize review rules
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:48:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uGhBua37_gf3eO30X24JrmpBBwws6W=9v9Kb4HDVn5v-A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e3e60bad-ccd8-3aa3-f039-54c5adde977b@intel.com>

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Lionel Landwerlin
<lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com> wrote:
> Acked-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com>
>
> I assume review cannot be provided by someone who doesn't already contribute
> or has a number of patches in already.
>
> What's the criteria to become a reviewer?
> Is there is going to be a list of people to go to for review?

Just going out and getting the first r-b tag from the lowest bidder
would indeed be a bit silly, but I don't see any issue with new
contributors (who might not yet have pushed anything) doing review.

Imo review is about a lot more than just code correctess, it's also
really great tool for aligning a team on the ideas in a code, for
mentoring and learning and all that stuff. So someone new reviewing
code of someone experienced, and making the code and docs better by
asking questions, sounds pretty perfect to me.

Ofc two completely new contributors reviewing each another's stuff
would again defeat that, but then they need at least someone slightly
more experienced as committer again.

tldr; totally not worried nor seeing a need for criteria for reviewers.

Cheers, Daniel

> -
> Lionel
>
>
> On 18/07/17 17:00, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> There's a bunch of reasons why I think we should formalize and enforce
>> our review rules for igt patches:
>>
>> - We have a lot of new engineers joining and review helps enormously
>>    with mentoring and learning. But right now only patches from
>>    contributors without commit rights are consistently subjected to
>>    review, which makes this imbalanced and removes senior contributors
>>    from the review pool.
>>
>> - We have a much bigger team and we need to make sure we're aligned on
>>    where igt as a tool and testsuite needs to head towards. Getting
>>    that alignment happens through reviewing each other's submission.
>>    Pushing a contentious patch and then dealing with a heated irc
>>    discussion is much less effective.
>>
>> - Finally igt becomes ever more important for our testing, making sure
>>    the code quality is high is important. Review helps with that.
>>
>> v2: Improve wording a bit (Imre).
>>
>> Acked-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
>> Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>> Acked-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
>> Acked-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
>> Acked-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>
>> Acked-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
>> Acked-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com>
>> Acked-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
>> Acked-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>> Acked-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   CONTRIBUTING | 9 +++++----
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING
>> index d2adcf03b7c3..561c5dd80bba 100644
>> --- a/CONTRIBUTING
>> +++ b/CONTRIBUTING
>> @@ -26,10 +26,11 @@ A short list of contribution guidelines:
>>     convenience macros provided by the igt library. The semantic patch
>> lib/igt.cocci
>>     can help with the more automatic conversions.
>>   -- 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.
>> +- Patches need to be reviewed on the mailing list. Exceptions only apply
>> for
>> +  testcases and tooling for drivers with just a single contributor (e.g.
>> vc4).
>> +  In this case patches must still be submitted to the mailing list first.
>> +  Testcase should preferrably be cross-reviewed by the same people who
>> write and
>> +  review the kernel feature itself.
>>     - When patches from new contributors (without commit access) are
>> stuck, for
>>     anything related to the regular releases, issues with packaging and
>
>
>

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx