From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95F7CA9EAF for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 11:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AC4206C2 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 11:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="tZz7eRNl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728188AbfJULQo (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:16:44 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f195.google.com ([209.85.222.195]:46024 "EHLO mail-qk1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727831AbfJULQo (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:16:44 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f195.google.com with SMTP id q70so4626869qke.12 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:16:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=I7HDqlovTWFXgZG5lFeXS0blu+MDoVkvU9HPoV8e7wM=; b=tZz7eRNlHnR57BGlc07Qh+OmO7JuZuZsonpMpzdHgK3axDs0W4p0NTy9N+I7kUmNP5 8Q6LarW1T03mS888pCHwicSNvEjiIsS5BpwnTeXmQc9wFN27ZeXta6iXkGMLCEg/qObc rjf0GKdvy9wYB1ED+iUSffhDFlWR+OPTidUKuyHNAX90ygbblLn5SWJ8P77gDLXmhoLH nzP8KoqpV9rd/rDCfAum+aCdPZ6F92et3OqzD+rYHphf4GJ2/ICPUiLUhfukoOud9ydv FS8QeL4y9Ti0DdhPx/Z/BVPgnUOtk5diffRgGPcEWMCDVxLjQPxB8WRKT1Dr/Usgv5WE bkgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=I7HDqlovTWFXgZG5lFeXS0blu+MDoVkvU9HPoV8e7wM=; b=VFsBRF+EmDqiEeKTGM1Z3f9HXxlm1zjZP+pnLdCedNFB6tZTP27qM8eOOH/L95qaTZ rlkr+EA4NC5cyE8xqzE4/U5s91JNiCdPouTmZwZKnoCXd7D8KprNRaDgqwFmXMmVfHkQ mE9HnhvTrjqGSJveBSPfRnyUvT8+Inm9tjLfYsCsU6zU03DODq9pxv9wqZ6ep8BdsYd+ 8T0Hs9EtP2BU32SlPZD2KhiFUvhk64PGj0+XtpiQ0RGfiIRQcuRgz6LTWTr7toKxhJ50 OGrDqSy1vkebc2MNQG+/1QjvrykWmBmA7/UpKp7n6Spazsu5PFMMicb3mCpTJ1f9RCye pfSw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX2oIhPwfCdMcyKscH+Ospf3ppm4pWe8t97si4NXEpjCkxxJJUy aOQB1TWoTr99N881j/qoeCr8krWp1YPCl/R9lGVouQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz3jg7zY5VnAoZXS3NT7M9QIs6g6J+zYf5uFv03dOmcEcohb7O/xP0Olu1jjRj3wEmxTixmXNG8Bk7GQ2gI5jQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:6b6:: with SMTP id i22mr21326895qkh.256.1571656602152; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 04:16:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191010144150.hqiosvwolm3lmzp5@chatter.i7.local> <20191011085702.GB1075470@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dmitry Vyukov Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:16:29 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch To: Shuah Khan Cc: Greg KH , patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:58 PM Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:20 PM Shuah Khan wrote: > > > > On 10/11/19 2:57 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > >> Hi, all: > > >> > > >> I would like to propose a new (large) feature to patchwork with the goal to > > >> make the process of submitting a patch easier for newbies and people > > >> generally less familiar with patch-based development. This was discussed > > >> previously on the workflows list: > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/20190930202451.GA14403@pure.paranoia.local/ > > >> > > >> How I envision this would work: > > >> > > >> - user creates an account (which requires a mail confirmation) >> - they choose a "submit patch" option from the menu > > >> - the patch submission screen has a succession of screens: > > >> > > >> 1. a screen with a single field allowing a user to paste a URL to their > > >> fork of the git repository. Once submitted, patchwork does a "git > > >> ls-remote" to attempt to get a list of refs and to verify that this is > > >> indeed a valid git repository > > > > > > s/valid git repository/valid git repository based on the kernel git tree/ > > > > > > Otherwise you might be sending out lots of emails for other projects :) > > > > > >> > > >> 2. next screen asks the user to select the ref to work from using the > > >> list obtained from the remote. Once submitted, patchwork performs a `git > > >> clone --reference` to clone the repository locally using a local fork of > > >> the same repo to minimize object transfer. This part requires that: > > >> a. patchwork project is configured with a path to a local fork, > > >> if this feature is enabled for a project > > >> b. that fork is kept current via some mechanism outside of > > >> patchwork (e.g. with grokmirror) > > >> c. there is some sanity-checking during the clone process to > > >> avoid abuse (e.g. a sane timeout, a tmpdir with limited size, etc > > >> -- other suggestions welcome) > > >> > > >> 3. next screen asks the user to pick a starting commit from the log. > > >> Once submitted, patchwork generates the patch from the commit provided > > >> to the tip of the branch selected by the user earlier, > > >> using git format-patch. > > >> > > >> 4. next screen asks the user to review the patch to make sure this is > > >> what they want to submit. Once confirmed, patchwork performs two > > >> admin-defined optional hooks: > > >> > > >> a. a hook to generate a list of cc's (e.g. get_maintainer.pl) > > >> b. a sanity check hook (e.g. checkpatch.pl) > > > > > > I will note that many "first patch" submissions are checkpatch.pl > > > cleanups for staging. When doing that, I require that they do "one > > > logical change per patch", which means that many of the individual > > > patches themselves will not be checkpatch.pl clean, because many lines > > > have multiple issues with them (tabs, spaces, format, length, etc.) > > > > > > So other than that minor thing, sounds interesting. It's hard to > > > determine just how difficult the whole "set up git and send a patch out" > > > process is for people these days given the _huge_ numbers of new > > > contributions we keep getting, and the numerous good tutorials we have > > > created that spell out exactly how to do this. > > > > > > So you might be "solving" a problem that we don't really have. It's > > > hard to tell :( > > > > > > > I agree with this. I don't think this a problem that is worth solving. > > When a new developer wants to send a patch, they don't need to create > > any accounts. They setup their email client and send patch. > > > > We have several resources that walk them through setting up email > > clients and sending patches. checkpatch.pl can be automated with > > git hooks. > > > > >> I know this is a pretty big RFE, and I would like to hear your thoughts > > >> about this. If there is general agreement that this is doable/good idea, I > > >> may be able to come up with funding for this development as part of the > > >> overall tooling improvement proposal. > > > > > > The workflow seems sane, and matches what most people do today, with the > > > exception that it "solves" the git send-email issue, right? Is that our > > > biggest barrier? > > > > > > I would recommend interviewing some of the recent kernel mentor project > > > and outreachy applicants first, to try to determine exactly what their > > > problems, if any, were with our development process. If they say that > > > this type of tool/workflow would have saved them hours of time and > > > energy, then that's a great indication that we should try to do this. > > > > > > > I would say considering the number of applicants to mentorship program > > and new developers it will be lot overhead to require them to create > > patchwork accounts, and it might even be hard overtime. A lot of them > > start out and drop out in the middle. With the current setup, nothing > > to cleanup. > > > > Setting up email clients and git hooks is one time task. It is the > > easiest of the learning curve for many new developers. New developers > > struggle with getting the change logs right, coding styles right, and > > responding to review comments and acting on them. > > > > These aren't something that can be automated and they just have to > > learn through experience of sending patches. > > > > My opinion based on contact with new developers as well running the > > mentorship program, I would sat this isn't something that needs > > solving. > > > > thanks, > > -- Shuah > > > As one data point, I cannot send emails with git send-email anymore. > It used to work, then broke and I don't know how to fix it. Now it says: > > 5.7.8 Username and Password not accepted. Learn more at > 5.7.8 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=BadCredentials > s10sm8376885wrr.5 - gsmtp > > I suspect it has something to do with two factor auth. > So that's it: it cannot contribute to kernel right now. > I will not consider time spent fixing it as useful time investment. > > Any kernel documentation that I can find for gmail, mentions config > that I am already using and that is not working: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/search.html?q=gmail&check_keywords=yes&area=default# > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/email-clients.html?highlight=gmail > > As another data point, I spoke to KP Singh at the Plumbers. He is a > "returning" kernel developer (so already did this before), he said it > took him 3 days and 52 configurations changes (all were committed to > git, so was possible to count exactly) to setup mail client properly. > And he is "staffed" to do kernel work, I would expect that most people > who don't _have_ to do kernel contributions will turn away half-way. > > As another data point, several people told me that they are afraid of > sending kernel patches b/c there is so much "on you" to do right. > > I would say that we need to aim at a process that does not require a > friendly experienced person to answer any of your questions in the > common case. Lots of people will simply not ask any questions. Just arrived: lost emails and patches: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/GSD7eiEJm5M/XyKMJ_v8BAAJ