[Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Cornelia Huck]

Hi,

for 2.13 (or whatever it will be called), I'd like to switch to a
submaintainer model for s390x, where maintainers for a certain s390x
area (including myself) send me pull requests that I integrate into
s390-next resp. s390-fixes, for which I send a pull request to merge
into master.

The problem here is that I don't want these sub pull requests to be
picked up by Peter's scripts, generating confusion. So far, my ideas
have been:

- Post s390 pull requests only to qemu-s390x@nongnu.org. This sucks, as
  it makes part of the process intransparent to any QEMU developer not
  subscribed to that mailing list.
- Put a certain marker into the subject, like "PULL *s390x*" or so. I'm
  not sure how robust that is.
- Ditch the pull request idea, keep applying patches. This is not quite
  as bad as it sounds, as I have the infrastructure to apply patches
  anyway, but it hides the real workflow (and simply pulling is likely
  less work for me in the long run.)

Thoughts? Ideas?

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Peter Maydell]

On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for 2.13 (or whatever it will be called), I'd like to switch to a
> submaintainer model for s390x, where maintainers for a certain s390x
> area (including myself) send me pull requests that I integrate into
> s390-next resp. s390-fixes, for which I send a pull request to merge
> into master.
>
> The problem here is that I don't want these sub pull requests to be
> picked up by Peter's scripts, generating confusion. So far, my ideas
> have been:
>
> - Post s390 pull requests only to qemu-s390x@nongnu.org. This sucks, as
>   it makes part of the process intransparent to any QEMU developer not
>   subscribed to that mailing list.
> - Put a certain marker into the subject, like "PULL *s390x*" or so. I'm
>   not sure how robust that is.
> - Ditch the pull request idea, keep applying patches. This is not quite
>   as bad as it sounds, as I have the infrastructure to apply patches
>   anyway, but it hides the real workflow (and simply pulling is likely
>   less work for me in the long run.)

The block folks are already doing this, so we should just
formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point
of view as long as there's something I can easily filter
in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused
(and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time
a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!)
I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with
'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ?

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Cornelia Huck]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:25:12 +0000
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > for 2.13 (or whatever it will be called), I'd like to switch to a
> > submaintainer model for s390x, where maintainers for a certain s390x
> > area (including myself) send me pull requests that I integrate into
> > s390-next resp. s390-fixes, for which I send a pull request to merge
> > into master.
> >
> > The problem here is that I don't want these sub pull requests to be
> > picked up by Peter's scripts, generating confusion. So far, my ideas
> > have been:
> >
> > - Post s390 pull requests only to qemu-s390x@nongnu.org. This sucks, as
> >   it makes part of the process intransparent to any QEMU developer not
> >   subscribed to that mailing list.
> > - Put a certain marker into the subject, like "PULL *s390x*" or so. I'm
> >   not sure how robust that is.
> > - Ditch the pull request idea, keep applying patches. This is not quite
> >   as bad as it sounds, as I have the infrastructure to apply patches
> >   anyway, but it hides the real workflow (and simply pulling is likely
> >   less work for me in the long run.)  
> 
> The block folks are already doing this, so we should just
> formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point
> of view as long as there's something I can easily filter
> in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused
> (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time
> a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!)
> I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with
> 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ?

Yes, "PULL SUBSYSTEM <subsys>" looks reasonable.

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 16/02/2018 12:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> The block folks are already doing this, so we should just
> formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point
> of view as long as there's something I can easily filter
> in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused
> (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time
> a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!)
> I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with
> 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ?

What about just requiring you to be in the "To" or "Cc" fields?  That
works pretty well for Linux.

Paolo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Peter Maydell]

On 16 February 2018 at 14:53, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 16/02/2018 12:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>> The block folks are already doing this, so we should just
>> formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point
>> of view as long as there's something I can easily filter
>> in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused
>> (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time
>> a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!)
>> I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with
>> 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ?
>
> What about just requiring you to be in the "To" or "Cc" fields?  That
> works pretty well for Linux.

It would require existing submaintainers to change their process,
though -- currently not all pull requests are to/cc me.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 16/02/2018 16:03, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 February 2018 at 14:53, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 16/02/2018 12:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> The block folks are already doing this, so we should just
>>> formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point
>>> of view as long as there's something I can easily filter
>>> in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused
>>> (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time
>>> a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!)
>>> I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with
>>> 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ?
>>
>> What about just requiring you to be in the "To" or "Cc" fields?  That
>> works pretty well for Linux.
> 
> It would require existing submaintainers to change their process,
> though -- currently not all pull requests are to/cc me.

Yeah, but that would not be too hard.  There are only about 40
maintainers, and if anybody misses the news they would notice fairly
quickly. :)

BTW, Fam and I are also planning to improve Patchew so that it is better
at detecting pull requests and especially merged pull requests.

Thanks,

Paolo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Cornelia Huck]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:08:39 +0100
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 16/02/2018 16:03, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 16 February 2018 at 14:53, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:  
> >> On 16/02/2018 12:25, Peter Maydell wrote:  
> >>> On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> The block folks are already doing this, so we should just
> >>> formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point
> >>> of view as long as there's something I can easily filter
> >>> in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused
> >>> (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time
> >>> a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!)
> >>> I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with
> >>> 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ?  
> >>
> >> What about just requiring you to be in the "To" or "Cc" fields?  That
> >> works pretty well for Linux.  
> > 
> > It would require existing submaintainers to change their process,
> > though -- currently not all pull requests are to/cc me.  
> 
> Yeah, but that would not be too hard.  There are only about 40
> maintainers, and if anybody misses the news they would notice fairly
> quickly. :)

Well, I wouldn't mind (I send pull requests to Peter anyway, and I'd
certainly want s390x pull requests addressed to me as well).

We could use both (subject prefix and To:/Cc:) for a
belt-and-suspenders approach.

> 
> BTW, Fam and I are also planning to improve Patchew so that it is better
> at detecting pull requests and especially merged pull requests.

Cool.

Would a certain formatting be helpful for patchew as well? Or do you
plan to parse the cover letter to hopefully find the output of git
request-pull and get the correct base from that?

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 16/02/2018 17:09, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> BTW, Fam and I are also planning to improve Patchew so that it is better
>> at detecting pull requests and especially merged pull requests.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> Would a certain formatting be helpful for patchew as well? Or do you
> plan to parse the cover letter to hopefully find the output of git
> request-pull and get the correct base from that?

Yes, basically replace "git am" with "git fetch" if the cover letter has
a line that looks like it's produced by "git request-pull".

Paolo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Daniel P. Berrangé]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:03:07PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 February 2018 at 14:53, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 16/02/2018 12:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> The block folks are already doing this, so we should just
> >> formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point
> >> of view as long as there's something I can easily filter
> >> in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused
> >> (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time
> >> a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!)
> >> I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with
> >> 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ?
> >
> > What about just requiring you to be in the "To" or "Cc" fields?  That
> > works pretty well for Linux.
> 
> It would require existing submaintainers to change their process,
> though -- currently not all pull requests are to/cc me.

All this time I thought it was /already/ required to cc Peter on
pull requests !

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests

[Peter Maydell]

On 16 February 2018 at 15:13, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:03:07PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 16 February 2018 at 14:53, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On 16/02/2018 12:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> The block folks are already doing this, so we should just
>> >> formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point
>> >> of view as long as there's something I can easily filter
>> >> in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused
>> >> (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time
>> >> a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!)
>> >> I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with
>> >> 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ?
>> >
>> > What about just requiring you to be in the "To" or "Cc" fields?  That
>> > works pretty well for Linux.
>>
>> It would require existing submaintainers to change their process,
>> though -- currently not all pull requests are to/cc me.
>
> All this time I thought it was /already/ required to cc Peter on
> pull requests !

The only thing I currently require is that the body text
contains the appropriate magic words and that it goes to
qemu-devel in to or cc.

thanks
-- PMM