Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Alan & Kim Zimmerman]

What about some sort of script that detects MR older than x time without a
reviewer, and asks a group of people to take a look.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 19:36, Richard Eisenberg  wrote:

> I wonder if it would alleviate the concerns to have a ghc-maintainers
> mailing list. This is distinct from ghc-devs, in that the maintainers have
> GHC as their day job. It would explicitly invite email from folks
> struggling to figure out how to contribute. I don't mean to create more
> mail for Ben et al, but having an explicit "seek help here" direction is
> nice. And (at least for me) mailing a list for help feels more comfortable
> than emailing an individual.
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:30 PM, Ben Gamari  wrote:
>
> Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs  writes:
>
> |  If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
> |  for a new contributors patch
> |  then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new
> |  contributors.
>
> Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to
> convey.  Thanks for highlighting it.
>
> You'd like the maintainers to have an *obligation* to cause someone to
> produce a good review on every patch. Here's the worst-case scenario: a
> well-meaning but inexperienced person produces a stream of large,
> ill-thought-out, and mostly wrong patches.  To give a guarantee of high
> quality reviews of those patches amounts to a blank cheque on the time of
> volunteers working mostly in their spare time.
>
> Now, of course, that's an extreme scenario.  But that's why I'm keen to
> avoid making it an unconditional obligation that the few maintainers must
> discharge.
>
> I don’t think there is really a difference of opinion here.  Of course we
> welcome patches; of course everyone will try to help find reviewers if they
> are lacking!
>
> So how about this
> - the author nominates reviewers
> - if he or she finds difficulty in doing so, or the reviewers s/he
>  nominates are unresponsive, then he or she should ask for help
> - maintainers should make efforts to help
>
> In my mind there has always been a (perhaps too implicit) promise that
> maintainers are always present in the background and happy to help in
> finding reviewers if asked (and perhaps even if not, if it seems a
> contributor is lost).
>
> Perhaps we should make this more explicit?
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
>
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Richard Eisenberg]

I wonder if it would alleviate the concerns to have a ghc-maintainers mailing 
list. This is distinct from ghc-devs, in that the maintainers have GHC as their 
day job. It would explicitly invite email from folks struggling to figure out 
how to contribute. I don't mean to create more mail for Ben et al, but having 
an explicit "seek help here" direction is nice. And (at least for me) mailing a 
list for help feels more comfortable than emailing an individual.

Richard

> On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:30 PM, Ben Gamari  wrote:
> 
> Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs  > writes:
> 
>> |  If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
>> |  for a new contributors patch
>> |  then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new
>> |  contributors.
>> 
>> Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to 
>> convey.  Thanks for highlighting it.
>> 
>> You'd like the maintainers to have an *obligation* to cause someone to 
>> produce a good review on every patch. Here's the worst-case scenario: a 
>> well-meaning but inexperienced person produces a stream of large, 
>> ill-thought-out, and mostly wrong patches.  To give a guarantee of high 
>> quality reviews of those patches amounts to a blank cheque on the time of 
>> volunteers working mostly in their spare time.
>> 
>> Now, of course, that's an extreme scenario.  But that's why I'm keen to 
>> avoid making it an unconditional obligation that the few maintainers must 
>> discharge.
>> 
>> I don’t think there is really a difference of opinion here.  Of course we 
>> welcome patches; of course everyone will try to help find reviewers if they 
>> are lacking!
>> 
>> So how about this
>> - the author nominates reviewers
>> - if he or she finds difficulty in doing so, or the reviewers s/he
>>  nominates are unresponsive, then he or she should ask for help
>> - maintainers should make efforts to help
>> 
> In my mind there has always been a (perhaps too implicit) promise that
> maintainers are always present in the background and happy to help in
> finding reviewers if asked (and perhaps even if not, if it seems a
> contributor is lost).
> 
> Perhaps we should make this more explicit?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Ben
> 
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org 
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs 
> 
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

RE: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Ben Gamari]

Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs  writes:

> |  If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
> |  for a new contributors patch
> |  then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new
> |  contributors.
>
> Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to 
> convey.  Thanks for highlighting it.
>
> You'd like the maintainers to have an *obligation* to cause someone to 
> produce a good review on every patch. Here's the worst-case scenario: a 
> well-meaning but inexperienced person produces a stream of large, 
> ill-thought-out, and mostly wrong patches.  To give a guarantee of high 
> quality reviews of those patches amounts to a blank cheque on the time of 
> volunteers working mostly in their spare time.
>
> Now, of course, that's an extreme scenario.  But that's why I'm keen to avoid 
> making it an unconditional obligation that the few maintainers must discharge.
>
> I don’t think there is really a difference of opinion here.  Of course we 
> welcome patches; of course everyone will try to help find reviewers if they 
> are lacking!
>
> So how about this
> - the author nominates reviewers
> - if he or she finds difficulty in doing so, or the reviewers s/he
>   nominates are unresponsive, then he or she should ask for help
> - maintainers should make efforts to help
>
In my mind there has always been a (perhaps too implicit) promise that
maintainers are always present in the background and happy to help in
finding reviewers if asked (and perhaps even if not, if it seems a
contributor is lost).

Perhaps we should make this more explicit?

Cheers,

- Ben



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Ben Gamari]

Matthew Pickering  writes:

> If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
> for a new contributors patch then it doesn't seem to me that a project
> wants or values new contributors.
>
For what it's worth, I am happy to try to find reviewers for a
newcomer's patch. However, on the whole it is better for everyone
involved if the contributor does it:

 * the contributor is more involved in the process and, consequently,
   more invested

 * the process moves more quickly since the contributor doesn't need to
   wait for someone else to find reviewers for their work

 * me and the rest of us at Well-Typed are less of a bottleneck and
   therefore have more time for improving GHC
 
Of course, even with this policy, if I see a patch languishing then I
will try to handle it. In my view all we are doing here is setting the
preferred default; .

> A maintainer can make a value judgement about a patch that is isn't
> worth reviewing, but such
> situations are exceedingly rare. Everyone contributes patches in good
> faith in order to make the compiler better.
>
> Realistically it's impossible to be a good reviewer without having
> implemented patches on the code base. If you don't
> have a good handle for how things work then it's too big to get a feel
> for just by reading the code. You need to learn how things
> fit together by getting stuck writing patches.
>
> At least some of the maintainers are paid to maintain GHC and as such,
> should be expected to perform responsibilities that
> volunteers are not willing to perform. One of these tasks should be
> finding reviewers for all patches and making sure contributions
> do not languish indefinitely.
>
> Apart from this one point the suggested process sounds good but it
> seems to have stalled in the last month.
>
Indeed I've been stuck in an endless cycle of pre-release tasks.
Hopefully this will end today.

Cheers,

- Ben



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Niklas Larsson]

Hi!

I have contributed a patch or two to GHC, so I guess I’m a reasonable example 
of an newbie.

The step of nominating reviewers just wouldn’t work for me. I have no idea of 
who in this project would be willing and able to give a review. Or who the 
eligible reviewers are. Maybe I’d select someone who haven’t been active for 
years. 

If you do this, can you please add an alternative “I’m a clueless newbie, help 
me select reviewers” to that step?

Regards,
Niklas

> 8 nov. 2019 kl. 11:53 skrev Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs 
> :
> 
> |  If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
> |  for a new contributors patch
> |  then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new
> |  contributors.
> 
> Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to 
> convey.  Thanks for highlighting it.
> 
> You'd like the maintainers to have an *obligation* to cause someone to 
> produce a good review on every patch. Here's the worst-case scenario: a 
> well-meaning but inexperienced person produces a stream of large, 
> ill-thought-out, and mostly wrong patches.  To give a guarantee of high 
> quality reviews of those patches amounts to a blank cheque on the time of 
> volunteers working mostly in their spare time.
> 
> Now, of course, that's an extreme scenario.  But that's why I'm keen to avoid 
> making it an unconditional obligation that the few maintainers must discharge.
> 
> I don’t think there is really a difference of opinion here.  Of course we 
> welcome patches; of course everyone will try to help find reviewers if they 
> are lacking!
> 
> So how about this
> - the author nominates reviewers
> - if he or she finds difficulty in doing so, or the reviewers s/he
>  nominates are unresponsive, then he or she should ask for help
> - maintainers should make efforts to help
> 
> In other words, as an author you remain in control. But help is available if 
> you need it.
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> Simon
> 
> |  -Original Message-
> |  From: Matthew Pickering 
> |  Sent: 08 November 2019 10:25
> |  To: Simon Peyton Jones 
> |  Cc: Ben Gamari ; ghc-devs@haskell.org
> |  Subject: Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow
> |  
> |  If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
> |  for a new contributors patch
> |  then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new
> |  contributors.
> |  
> |  A maintainer can make a value judgement about a patch that is isn't
> |  worth reviewing, but such
> |  situations are exceedingly rare. Everyone contributes patches in good
> |  faith in order to make the compiler better.
> |  
> |  Realistically it's impossible to be a good reviewer without having
> |  implemented patches on the code base. If you don't
> |  have a good handle for how things work then it's too big to get a feel
> |  for just by reading the code. You need to learn how things
> |  fit together by getting stuck writing patches.
> |  
> |  At least some of the maintainers are paid to maintain GHC and as such,
> |  should be expected to perform responsibilities that
> |  volunteers are not willing to perform. One of these tasks should be
> |  finding reviewers for all patches and making sure contributions
> |  do not languish indefinitely.
> |  
> |  Apart from this one point the suggested process sounds good but it
> |  seems to have stalled in the last month.
> |  
> |  Cheers,
> |  
> |  Matt
> |  
> |  On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:31 AM Simon Peyton Jones
> |   wrote:
> |  >
> |  > |  >  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to
> |  identify
> |  > |  reviewers for their merge requests.
> |  > |
> |  > |  Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
> |  > |  contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
> |  > |  maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
> |  > |  reviewers.
> |  >
> |  > It is true that it's hard to find reviewers. But if it's hard for the
> |  author it is also hard for the maintainers.  A patch is a service that an
> |  author is offering, which is great.   But every patch is owed, as a matter
> |  of right, suitable and willing reviewers, the patch is /also/ a blank
> |  cheque that any author can write, but it's up to someone else to pay.
> |  That's not good either.  No author has an unlimited call on the time of
> |  other volunteers, and I don't think any author truly expects that.
> |  >
> |  > It's an informal gift economy.  I review your patches (a) because I have
> |  learned that y

RE: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs]

|  If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
|  for a new contributors patch
|  then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new
|  contributors.

Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to convey.  
Thanks for highlighting it.

You'd like the maintainers to have an *obligation* to cause someone to produce 
a good review on every patch. Here's the worst-case scenario: a well-meaning 
but inexperienced person produces a stream of large, ill-thought-out, and 
mostly wrong patches.  To give a guarantee of high quality reviews of those 
patches amounts to a blank cheque on the time of volunteers working mostly in 
their spare time.

Now, of course, that's an extreme scenario.  But that's why I'm keen to avoid 
making it an unconditional obligation that the few maintainers must discharge.

I don’t think there is really a difference of opinion here.  Of course we 
welcome patches; of course everyone will try to help find reviewers if they are 
lacking!

So how about this
- the author nominates reviewers
- if he or she finds difficulty in doing so, or the reviewers s/he
  nominates are unresponsive, then he or she should ask for help
- maintainers should make efforts to help

In other words, as an author you remain in control. But help is available if 
you need it.

What do others think?

Simon

|  -Original Message-
|  From: Matthew Pickering 
|  Sent: 08 November 2019 10:25
|  To: Simon Peyton Jones 
|  Cc: Ben Gamari ; ghc-devs@haskell.org
|  Subject: Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow
|  
|  If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
|  for a new contributors patch
|  then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new
|  contributors.
|  
|  A maintainer can make a value judgement about a patch that is isn't
|  worth reviewing, but such
|  situations are exceedingly rare. Everyone contributes patches in good
|  faith in order to make the compiler better.
|  
|  Realistically it's impossible to be a good reviewer without having
|  implemented patches on the code base. If you don't
|  have a good handle for how things work then it's too big to get a feel
|  for just by reading the code. You need to learn how things
|  fit together by getting stuck writing patches.
|  
|  At least some of the maintainers are paid to maintain GHC and as such,
|  should be expected to perform responsibilities that
|  volunteers are not willing to perform. One of these tasks should be
|  finding reviewers for all patches and making sure contributions
|  do not languish indefinitely.
|  
|  Apart from this one point the suggested process sounds good but it
|  seems to have stalled in the last month.
|  
|  Cheers,
|  
|  Matt
|  
|  On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:31 AM Simon Peyton Jones
|   wrote:
|  >
|  > |  >  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to
|  identify
|  > |  reviewers for their merge requests.
|  > |
|  > |  Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
|  > |  contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
|  > |  maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
|  > |  reviewers.
|  >
|  > It is true that it's hard to find reviewers. But if it's hard for the
|  author it is also hard for the maintainers.  A patch is a service that an
|  author is offering, which is great.   But every patch is owed, as a matter
|  of right, suitable and willing reviewers, the patch is /also/ a blank
|  cheque that any author can write, but it's up to someone else to pay.
|  That's not good either.  No author has an unlimited call on the time of
|  other volunteers, and I don't think any author truly expects that.
|  >
|  > It's an informal gift economy.  I review your patches (a) because I have
|  learned that you have good judgement and write good code (b) because I
|  want the bug that you are fixing to be fixed and (c) because you give me
|  all sorts of helpful feedback about my patches, or otherwise contribute to
|  the community in constructive ways.
|  >
|  > That may make it hard for /new/ authors to get started.  Being an
|  assiduous reviewer is an excellent plan, because it gets you into GHC's
|  code base, guided by someone else's work; and it earns you all those good-
|  contributor points.  But even then it may be hard.  So I think it's
|  absolutely reasonable for authors to ask for help in finding reviewers.
|  >
|  > But simply saying that it's "the maintainers" responsibility to find
|  reviewers goes much too far in the other direction, IMHO.
|  >
|  > Perhaps we should articulate some of this thinking.
|  >
|  > Simon
|  >
|  > |  -Original Message-
|  > |  From: ghc-devs  On Behalf Of Matthew
|  > |  Pickering
| 

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Matthew Pickering]

If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers
for a new contributors patch
then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new contributors.

A maintainer can make a value judgement about a patch that is isn't
worth reviewing, but such
situations are exceedingly rare. Everyone contributes patches in good
faith in order to make the compiler better.

Realistically it's impossible to be a good reviewer without having
implemented patches on the code base. If you don't
have a good handle for how things work then it's too big to get a feel
for just by reading the code. You need to learn how things
fit together by getting stuck writing patches.

At least some of the maintainers are paid to maintain GHC and as such,
should be expected to perform responsibilities that
volunteers are not willing to perform. One of these tasks should be
finding reviewers for all patches and making sure contributions
do not languish indefinitely.

Apart from this one point the suggested process sounds good but it
seems to have stalled in the last month.

Cheers,

Matt

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:31 AM Simon Peyton Jones
 wrote:
>
> |  >  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify
> |  reviewers for their merge requests.
> |
> |  Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
> |  contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
> |  maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
> |  reviewers.
>
> It is true that it's hard to find reviewers. But if it's hard for the author 
> it is also hard for the maintainers.  A patch is a service that an author is 
> offering, which is great.   But every patch is owed, as a matter of right, 
> suitable and willing reviewers, the patch is /also/ a blank cheque that any 
> author can write, but it's up to someone else to pay.   That's not good 
> either.  No author has an unlimited call on the time of other volunteers, and 
> I don't think any author truly expects that.
>
> It's an informal gift economy.  I review your patches (a) because I have 
> learned that you have good judgement and write good code (b) because I want 
> the bug that you are fixing to be fixed and (c) because you give me all sorts 
> of helpful feedback about my patches, or otherwise contribute to the 
> community in constructive ways.
>
> That may make it hard for /new/ authors to get started.  Being an assiduous 
> reviewer is an excellent plan, because it gets you into GHC's code base, 
> guided by someone else's work; and it earns you all those good-contributor 
> points.  But even then it may be hard.  So I think it's absolutely reasonable 
> for authors to ask for help in finding reviewers.
>
> But simply saying that it's "the maintainers" responsibility to find 
> reviewers goes much too far in the other direction, IMHO.
>
> Perhaps we should articulate some of this thinking.
>
> Simon
>
> |  -----Original Message-
> |  From: ghc-devs  On Behalf Of Matthew
> |  Pickering
> |  Sent: 09 October 2019 11:18
> |  To: Ben Gamari 
> |  Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
> |  Subject: Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow
> |
> |  Sounds good in principal but I object to
> |
> |  >  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify
> |  reviewers for their merge requests.
> |
> |  Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
> |  contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
> |  maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
> |  reviewers.
> |
> |  Cheers,
> |
> |  Matt
> |
> |  On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:17 PM Ben Gamari  wrote:
> |  >
> |  > tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge
> |  >request workflow.
> |  >
> |  >
> |  > Hello everyone,
> |  >
> |  > Over the past six months I have been monitoring the operation of our
> |  > merge request workflow, which arose rather organically in the wake of
> |  > the initial move to GitLab. While it works reasonably well, there is
> |  > clearly room for improvement:
> |  >
> |  >   * we have no formal way to track the status of in-flight merge
> |  > requests (e.g. for authors to mark an MR as ready for review or
> |  > reviewers to mark work as ready for merge)
> |  >
> |  >   * merge requests still at times languish without review
> |  >
> |  >   * the backport protocol is somewhat error prone and requires a great
> |  > deal of attention to ensure that patches don't slip through the
> |  > cracks
> |  >
> |  >   * th

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Oleg Grenrus]

Becoming a recognized reviewer before starting writing code feels 
perverse for me.


Linux kernel writes in 
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#select-the-recipients-for-your-patch 
as follows. (Note that patches are submitted by sending emails, read 
accordingly)


> You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any 
patch to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and 
the source code revision history to see who those maintainers are. The 
script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step. If you 
cannot find a maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew 
Morton (a...@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort.


GHC already has CODEOWNERS file, and there could be a person of last 
resort. There should be more names there though, e.g. /libraries/base/ 
should have the whole CLC, not only HVR; template-haskell could have 
Ryan Scott, etc. As the first commit message of CODEOWNERS says:


> GitLab uses this file to suggest reviewers based upon the files that 
a Merge Request touches.


Kernel guidelines also have a section about trivial patches. Thing to 
learn, there is a light way to get trivial patches in, but what's a 
trivial patch is objectively defined. An actual trivial patch monkey is 
a real person, but to my understanding it's a circulating role.


> For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey 
triv...@kernel.org which collects “trivial” patches. Have a look into 
the MAINTAINERS file for its current manager.

>
> Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules:
>
> - Spelling fixes in documentation
> - Spelling fixes for errors which could break grep(1)
> - Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
> - Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct)
> - Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things)
> - Removing use of deprecated functions/macros
> - Contact detail and documentation fixes
> - Non-portable code replaced by portable code (even in arch-specific, 
since people copy, as long as it’s trivial)
> - Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey in 
re-transmission mode)


- Oleg


On 9.10.2019 13.31, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs wrote:

|  >  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify
|  reviewers for their merge requests.
|
|  Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
|  contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
|  maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
|  reviewers.

It is true that it's hard to find reviewers. But if it's hard for the author it 
is also hard for the maintainers.  A patch is a service that an author is 
offering, which is great.   But every patch is owed, as a matter of right, 
suitable and willing reviewers, the patch is /also/ a blank cheque that any 
author can write, but it's up to someone else to pay.   That's not good either. 
 No author has an unlimited call on the time of other volunteers, and I don't 
think any author truly expects that.

It's an informal gift economy.  I review your patches (a) because I have 
learned that you have good judgement and write good code (b) because I want the 
bug that you are fixing to be fixed and (c) because you give me all sorts of 
helpful feedback about my patches, or otherwise contribute to the community in 
constructive ways.

That may make it hard for /new/ authors to get started.  Being an assiduous 
reviewer is an excellent plan, because it gets you into GHC's code base, guided 
by someone else's work; and it earns you all those good-contributor points.  
But even then it may be hard.  So I think it's absolutely reasonable for 
authors to ask for help in finding reviewers.

But simply saying that it's "the maintainers" responsibility to find reviewers 
goes much too far in the other direction, IMHO.

Perhaps we should articulate some of this thinking.

Simon

|  -Original Message-
|  From: ghc-devs  On Behalf Of Matthew
|  Pickering
|  Sent: 09 October 2019 11:18
|  To: Ben Gamari 
|  Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
|  Subject: Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow
|
|  Sounds good in principal but I object to
|
|  >  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify
|  reviewers for their merge requests.
|
|  Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
|  contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
|  maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
|  reviewers.
|
|  Cheers,
|
|  Matt
|
|  On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:17 PM Ben Gamari  wrote:
|  >
|  > tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge
|  >request workflow.
|  >
|  >
|  > Hello everyone,
|  >
|  

RE: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs]

|  >  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify
|  reviewers for their merge requests.
|  
|  Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
|  contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
|  maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
|  reviewers.

It is true that it's hard to find reviewers. But if it's hard for the author it 
is also hard for the maintainers.  A patch is a service that an author is 
offering, which is great.   But every patch is owed, as a matter of right, 
suitable and willing reviewers, the patch is /also/ a blank cheque that any 
author can write, but it's up to someone else to pay.   That's not good either. 
 No author has an unlimited call on the time of other volunteers, and I don't 
think any author truly expects that.

It's an informal gift economy.  I review your patches (a) because I have 
learned that you have good judgement and write good code (b) because I want the 
bug that you are fixing to be fixed and (c) because you give me all sorts of 
helpful feedback about my patches, or otherwise contribute to the community in 
constructive ways.

That may make it hard for /new/ authors to get started.  Being an assiduous 
reviewer is an excellent plan, because it gets you into GHC's code base, guided 
by someone else's work; and it earns you all those good-contributor points.  
But even then it may be hard.  So I think it's absolutely reasonable for 
authors to ask for help in finding reviewers.

But simply saying that it's "the maintainers" responsibility to find reviewers 
goes much too far in the other direction, IMHO.

Perhaps we should articulate some of this thinking.

Simon

|  -Original Message-
|  From: ghc-devs  On Behalf Of Matthew
|  Pickering
|  Sent: 09 October 2019 11:18
|  To: Ben Gamari 
|  Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
|  Subject: Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow
|  
|  Sounds good in principal but I object to
|  
|  >  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify
|  reviewers for their merge requests.
|  
|  Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
|  contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
|  maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
|  reviewers.
|  
|  Cheers,
|  
|  Matt
|  
|  On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:17 PM Ben Gamari  wrote:
|  >
|  > tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge
|  >request workflow.
|  >
|  >
|  > Hello everyone,
|  >
|  > Over the past six months I have been monitoring the operation of our
|  > merge request workflow, which arose rather organically in the wake of
|  > the initial move to GitLab. While it works reasonably well, there is
|  > clearly room for improvement:
|  >
|  >   * we have no formal way to track the status of in-flight merge
|  > requests (e.g. for authors to mark an MR as ready for review or
|  > reviewers to mark work as ready for merge)
|  >
|  >   * merge requests still at times languish without review
|  >
|  >   * the backport protocol is somewhat error prone and requires a great
|  > deal of attention to ensure that patches don't slip through the
|  > cracks
|  >
|  >   * there is no technical mechanism to prevent that under-reviewed
|  > patches from being merged (either intentionally or otherwise) to
|  > `master`
|  >
|  > To address this I propose [1] a few changes to our workflow:
|  >
|  >   1. Define explicit phases of the merge request lifecycle,
|  >  systematically identified with labels. This will help to make it
|  >  clear who is responsible for a merge request at every stage of its
|  >  lifecycle.
|  >
|  >   2. Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to
|  >  identify reviewers for their merge requests.
|  >
|  >   3. Institute a final pre-merge sanity check to ensure that
|  >  patches are adequately reviewed, documented, tested, and have had
|  >  their ticket and MR metadata updated.
|  >
|  > Note that this is merely a proposal; I am actively seeking input from
|  > the developer community. Do let me know what you think.
|  >
|  > Cheers,
|  >
|  > - Ben
|  >
|  >
|  > [1]
|  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.h
|  askell.org%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fwikis%2Fproposals%2Fmerge-request-
|  workflow&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cd1199fd308b442cf744f
|  08d74ca2074b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6370621311033130
|  52&sdata=SxBADAuF%2FvGzduaytetUzIxGr8lC%2BjTX2eCLNEoOCkQ%3D&reserv
|  ed=0
|  > ___
|  > ghc-devs mailing list
|  > ghc-devs@haskell.

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Oleg Grenrus]

+1

On 9.10.2019 13.18, Matthew Pickering wrote:

Sounds good in principal but I object to


  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify 
reviewers for their merge requests.

Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
reviewers.

Cheers,

Matt

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:17 PM Ben Gamari  wrote:

tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge
request workflow.


Hello everyone,

Over the past six months I have been monitoring the operation of our
merge request workflow, which arose rather organically in the wake of
the initial move to GitLab. While it works reasonably well, there is
clearly room for improvement:

   * we have no formal way to track the status of in-flight merge
 requests (e.g. for authors to mark an MR as ready for review or
 reviewers to mark work as ready for merge)

   * merge requests still at times languish without review

   * the backport protocol is somewhat error prone and requires a great
 deal of attention to ensure that patches don't slip through the
 cracks

   * there is no technical mechanism to prevent that under-reviewed
 patches from being merged (either intentionally or otherwise) to
 `master`

To address this I propose [1] a few changes to our workflow:

   1. Define explicit phases of the merge request lifecycle,
  systematically identified with labels. This will help to make it
  clear who is responsible for a merge request at every stage of its
  lifecycle.

   2. Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to
  identify reviewers for their merge requests.

   3. Institute a final pre-merge sanity check to ensure that
  patches are adequately reviewed, documented, tested, and have had
  their ticket and MR metadata updated.

Note that this is merely a proposal; I am actively seeking input from
the developer community. Do let me know what you think.

Cheers,

- Ben


[1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/proposals/merge-request-workflow
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Matthew Pickering]

Sounds good in principal but I object to

>  Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify 
> reviewers for their merge requests.

Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of
contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the
maintainer's should be responsible for finding suitable and willing
reviewers.

Cheers,

Matt

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:17 PM Ben Gamari  wrote:
>
> tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge
>request workflow.
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Over the past six months I have been monitoring the operation of our
> merge request workflow, which arose rather organically in the wake of
> the initial move to GitLab. While it works reasonably well, there is
> clearly room for improvement:
>
>   * we have no formal way to track the status of in-flight merge
> requests (e.g. for authors to mark an MR as ready for review or
> reviewers to mark work as ready for merge)
>
>   * merge requests still at times languish without review
>
>   * the backport protocol is somewhat error prone and requires a great
> deal of attention to ensure that patches don't slip through the
> cracks
>
>   * there is no technical mechanism to prevent that under-reviewed
> patches from being merged (either intentionally or otherwise) to
> `master`
>
> To address this I propose [1] a few changes to our workflow:
>
>   1. Define explicit phases of the merge request lifecycle,
>  systematically identified with labels. This will help to make it
>  clear who is responsible for a merge request at every stage of its
>  lifecycle.
>
>   2. Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to
>  identify reviewers for their merge requests.
>
>   3. Institute a final pre-merge sanity check to ensure that
>  patches are adequately reviewed, documented, tested, and have had
>  their ticket and MR metadata updated.
>
> Note that this is merely a proposal; I am actively seeking input from
> the developer community. Do let me know what you think.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
>
>
> [1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/proposals/merge-request-workflow
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Richard Eisenberg]

+1 from me.

> On Oct 8, 2019, at 7:19 PM, Shayne Fletcher via ghc-devs 
>  wrote:
> 
> All sounds very sensible to me.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:17 PM Ben Gamari  > wrote:
> tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge
>request workflow.
> 
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Over the past six months I have been monitoring the operation of our
> merge request workflow, which arose rather organically in the wake of
> the initial move to GitLab. While it works reasonably well, there is
> clearly room for improvement:
> 
>   * we have no formal way to track the status of in-flight merge
> requests (e.g. for authors to mark an MR as ready for review or
> reviewers to mark work as ready for merge)
> 
>   * merge requests still at times languish without review
> 
>   * the backport protocol is somewhat error prone and requires a great
> deal of attention to ensure that patches don't slip through the
> cracks
> 
>   * there is no technical mechanism to prevent that under-reviewed
> patches from being merged (either intentionally or otherwise) to
> `master`
> 
> To address this I propose [1] a few changes to our workflow:
> 
>   1. Define explicit phases of the merge request lifecycle,
>  systematically identified with labels. This will help to make it
>  clear who is responsible for a merge request at every stage of its
>  lifecycle.
> 
>   2. Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to
>  identify reviewers for their merge requests.
> 
>   3. Institute a final pre-merge sanity check to ensure that
>  patches are adequately reviewed, documented, tested, and have had
>  their ticket and MR metadata updated.
> 
> Note that this is merely a proposal; I am actively seeking input from
> the developer community. Do let me know what you think.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Ben
> 
> 
> [1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/proposals/merge-request-workflow 
> 
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org 
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Shayne Fletcher
> Language Engineer / +1 917 699 7663
> Digital Asset , creators of DAML 
> 
> 
> This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may 
> contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and 
> subject to important terms and conditions available at 
> http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html 
> . If you are not the 
> intended recipient, please delete this 
> message.___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Shayne Fletcher via ghc-devs]

All sounds very sensible to me.

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:17 PM Ben Gamari  wrote:

> tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge
>request workflow.
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Over the past six months I have been monitoring the operation of our
> merge request workflow, which arose rather organically in the wake of
> the initial move to GitLab. While it works reasonably well, there is
> clearly room for improvement:
>
>   * we have no formal way to track the status of in-flight merge
> requests (e.g. for authors to mark an MR as ready for review or
> reviewers to mark work as ready for merge)
>
>   * merge requests still at times languish without review
>
>   * the backport protocol is somewhat error prone and requires a great
> deal of attention to ensure that patches don't slip through the
> cracks
>
>   * there is no technical mechanism to prevent that under-reviewed
> patches from being merged (either intentionally or otherwise) to
> `master`
>
> To address this I propose [1] a few changes to our workflow:
>
>   1. Define explicit phases of the merge request lifecycle,
>  systematically identified with labels. This will help to make it
>  clear who is responsible for a merge request at every stage of its
>  lifecycle.
>
>   2. Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to
>  identify reviewers for their merge requests.
>
>   3. Institute a final pre-merge sanity check to ensure that
>  patches are adequately reviewed, documented, tested, and have had
>  their ticket and MR metadata updated.
>
> Note that this is merely a proposal; I am actively seeking input from
> the developer community. Do let me know what you think.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
>
>
> [1]
> https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/proposals/merge-request-workflow
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>


-- 
*Shayne Fletcher*
Language Engineer */* +1 917 699 7663
*Digital Asset* , creators of *DAML
*

-- 
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, 
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary 
and subject to important terms and conditions available at 
http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html 
. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this message.
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Proposed changes to merge request workflow

[Ben Gamari]

tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge
   request workflow.


Hello everyone,

Over the past six months I have been monitoring the operation of our
merge request workflow, which arose rather organically in the wake of
the initial move to GitLab. While it works reasonably well, there is
clearly room for improvement:

  * we have no formal way to track the status of in-flight merge
requests (e.g. for authors to mark an MR as ready for review or
reviewers to mark work as ready for merge)

  * merge requests still at times languish without review

  * the backport protocol is somewhat error prone and requires a great
deal of attention to ensure that patches don't slip through the
cracks

  * there is no technical mechanism to prevent that under-reviewed
patches from being merged (either intentionally or otherwise) to
`master`

To address this I propose [1] a few changes to our workflow:

  1. Define explicit phases of the merge request lifecycle,
 systematically identified with labels. This will help to make it
 clear who is responsible for a merge request at every stage of its
 lifecycle.

  2. Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to
 identify reviewers for their merge requests.

  3. Institute a final pre-merge sanity check to ensure that
 patches are adequately reviewed, documented, tested, and have had
 their ticket and MR metadata updated.

Note that this is merely a proposal; I am actively seeking input from
the developer community. Do let me know what you think.

Cheers,

- Ben


[1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/proposals/merge-request-workflow


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs