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 76EF7C4CECE for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:58:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4393F20873 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:58:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="N2oIzsoE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1733117AbfJNO6b (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:58:31 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:41708 "EHLO mail-qk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732566AbfJNO6a (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:58:30 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id p10so16132526qkg.8 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:58:30 -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=ptgHX5DKcWHI6v1VadDSkZXCvjN+gACVNIUcuOWUSxk=; b=N2oIzsoEQFpJwTwYVri71PcRpYnvVLQ6/ot8AIGxFIxZ/CTG1NT87A2jYLKxPy+H5E M4OS/uPZox9INSRCoCDvMbRttJmX2Wv3zqbkDGUb+dgl5pR82dUxXRFXLHX+eVTFTQE1 UP+CUOeRRA7ocOjNEo7EMTzvsDWdBUGGMqJn4cqqEuP9japcP9s5LrODi8gu56OIHNpp DpGuIRD7ThnzWgdk9sZea/+LwLuMTSGyNi73WHaO8ctIc0r8FENQq8IxhQztt68oxNpJ Hc+uHZ+kBEdVXY7yJDf76XnnNP+2nUui/qGQ4kwd1gjzJSFpdZgJfzIu4aPCVBE96mrT pNfA== 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=ptgHX5DKcWHI6v1VadDSkZXCvjN+gACVNIUcuOWUSxk=; b=dsE8ZOPbl497ZuZwkNNb9fFTZB3JiygG1UWpXfs8Wdcv1820Tc4L5ZzlztIY84OP0J Yh2AImSuAHDgqzQzmWilw8EgLnX8bNfObRXcC9GYSQI7Qq3U1tn3/pSAecS0sLpeH1mw PClvdDeIO3Yl1+Yk2TZltrqquaGB6txb2nhpLR12zvyNbwXoPaVSMCDS6Pq9XiVv2Cg+ QryfjXPihskZ+4+n9rPJrOgvSfSXs1njRFQCiY7xn9USK7uOK3TWSF4em6BD5GvTUQtR GmxvUCldctTacVO/IwIdmo9E/P37etCDuoo8Zbmt2SQFzy4FEXQGw6UBdIO9dulzggf6 Knzg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW4xg0WA9OGzhkc0I4DFHoOnPkNpqd++l7VEYuXe0EpI6LqjFUz Gy3OyIVh5SpHX/3F6lFyt7b6VQXdBkNwHCe7sWPd6w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzf6Ryt9Kfmc7WTgQiiCQ/xjyi8CDaHknzQkQZCUO0wK1JV/hGc64gIcLUlguv8k9E4u+vSxNrL93XKwxMpq8w= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2158:: with SMTP id m24mr30589744qkm.250.1571065108877; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:58:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191010144150.hqiosvwolm3lmzp5@chatter.i7.local> <20191011085702.GB1075470@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dmitry Vyukov Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:58:17 +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 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.