All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Workflow
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 11:06:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190510090601.GB7058@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1905091542340.3139@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:11:38PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> we should ASAP agree on a workflow for going through those 504
> patches. Here is my proposal:
> 
>   1) Use the one patch per identified pattern approach as demonstrated
>      with the first 4.
> 
>   2) Focus the review on the 'pattern -> SPDX id' conclusion
> 
>   3) Trust the automated patcher to do the right thing.

Sounds good to me.

> From my experience with this, it's the most sensible way, as it makes it
> scalable.
> 
> Versus trusting the patcher: I'm surely spending time on looking at the
> actual changes, but that's also massively based on automated analysis which
> exposes only unexpected changes and does not force me to stare at 20k+
> patched instances.
> 
> If we can agree on the above, then I'd like to send out batches of N
> patches, where N would be something in the range of 10-25. These patches
> are basically changelog only because quite some of the patches are too long
> for posting on the list. They surely will contain a git URL so you can look
> at the actual file changes as well (if you are masochistic enough).

I like longer batches, as I'm used to them, but 20-25 is fine.

> Ideally we get a quick feedback (OK/NOK) for each patch in a batch. The OK
> should be preferrably in the form of a 'Reviewed-by: Your Name <your@mail>'
> tag. We'll mention in the changelog that the Review is limited to the
> pattern -> SPDX id conclusion and does not cover the actual file level
> changes. I'll take the blame when then patcher gets it wrong :)
> 
> If a patch is deemed NOK we don't have to sort it out immediately. We can
> post pone it and handle it on the side so the queue is not held up.
> 
> Once a patch has collected Reviewed-by tags we would apply it to a
> repository and send it in batches to Linus.

Sounds reasonable.

> If a batch is consumed (except for the NOK parts) the next batch would be
> posted. Assumed we can handle 10 'pattern -> SPDX id' reviews per day, that
> would take ~10 weeks. Which is quite some time when we want to be halfways
> SPDX clean for the next LTS kernel. So I rather see larger batches
> processed faster :)

You should be able to send multiple batches at a time, right?  But 10
weeks isn't all that bad, I would shoot to get these all into the 5.4
kernel, so we can be done with it :)

> Any opinions on the size of the batches and how long it will take to get
> the reviews done or any other suggestions for a workable solution?

Normally I just wait 2 weeks for tiny patches, or one kernel release
cycle.  If no objections, then I merge to a tree that Linus can pull
from.

As a good example of this, I have some debugfs x86 patches that I posted
a while ago, no maintainer said anything, or took them into their own
tree, so I'll just merge them to a local tree to be sent off for 5.3-rc1 :)

thanks,

greg k-h

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-05-10  9:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-09 14:11 Workflow Thomas Gleixner
2019-05-09 14:45 ` Workflow Kate Stewart
2019-05-09 21:56   ` Workflow Thomas Gleixner
2019-05-10  9:25     ` Workflow Allison Randal
2019-05-10 10:54       ` Workflow Thomas Gleixner
2019-05-10 11:02         ` Workflow Allison Randal
2019-05-10 13:01     ` Workflow Kate Stewart
2019-05-10 13:18     ` Workflow Bradley M. Kuhn
2019-05-10  9:06 ` Greg KH [this message]
2021-05-09  7:33 workflow Fabio Aiuto
2021-05-09  9:31 ` workflow Geert Stappers
2021-05-09 10:42   ` workflow Fabio Aiuto
2021-05-09 12:13 ` workflow Miguel Ojeda
2021-05-09 17:37   ` workflow Fabio Aiuto

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190510090601.GB7058@kroah.com \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.