On 03/08/2018 12:22 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On 8 Mar 2018, at 12:13, Fabiano Fidêncio <fiden...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Jakub Hrozek <jhro...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2018, at 10:33, Fabiano Fidêncio <fiden...@redhat.com> wrote:
People,
I've noticed that I'm getting a little bit lost with github and the
way SSSD has its tags organized there.
As it may actually affect other people (and in case it does not, let's
just skip the following suggestion) ... I'd like to suggest the
following tags to the project:
- Accepted: We already have it;
- Rejected: We already have it.
- Tests needed: This one can either replace the "Changes Requested"
(in case it's split in a few different tags) or be used together ...
but the idea is to identify that tests are missing from a PR without
going through the whole discussions happening there;
What do you propose would be the action after tests needed? Should it be a
follow up PR, a ticket for the project, a ticket for downstream..?
After the "Tests needed" tag is added the developer should either:
- Write the tests upstream (considering that we have infra for that,
which is not the case for all the PRs)
Here I’m really worried that unless we have a ticket, this won’t happen. Look
at the “CI” milestone in pagure.. So I would say this case should result in
Changes requested, filing a ticket or asking downstream QE to write a test.
I would use this like this:
a) You push a PR so it can be reviewed and you plan to provide tests later.
b) You push a PR without tests and someone decides tests are mandatory
for this PR.
- Provide a "link" of the related downstream tests that were
broken/were added passing
This makes sense, although I would argue this should already be default. But if
you don’t think so, we can try the tag and see how it goes.
So, summing up, no ticket for the project, no ticket downstream ...
just making clear that the PR is stalled because "Tests are needed".
Does that make sense?
My worry about not supplying tests along with PRs is that the tests will never
be supplied..at least not in upstream..
I understand why you're worried and I agree with that. See the answer
above and let me know if it fits your expectations.
- Depends on (or something similar): This one can either replace the
"Changes Requested" (in case it's split in a few different tags) or be
used together ... but the idea is to identify that we depend on
somework that still has to be done (either another PR, ticket or
something else that has to be implemented). Mind that I'm not sure
whether we'd be able to simply add a field saying what the PR depends
on …
I think this makes sense. At least for a casual observer it would be clear that there is
no work needed on this P >>>
- Postponed/Deferred: We have something similar for 2.0, but would be
nice to have a way to clearly see in which release we're going to take
a look into a specific PR without having to dig in the discussions.
Here we could also have 1.16.1, 1.16.2, 2.0, …
Tags are cheap, we can even have a postponed/$version. I guess even depends/$PR
might be OK as long as we only had a handful of dependecies.
Patch dependencies are not that common so we can just set tag
"depend/blocked" and write PR/ticket it depends on to the PR message as
we do now.
- Reworked: Although just removing the "Changes Requested" label is
fine, maybe having a tag explicitly saying that something was Reworked
would be a clean way to differentiate between new PRs and PRs which
have been through a review already …
I don’t know how this tag would be used, could you give me an example, please?
I usually have no idea (just by a quick look on github) whether a PR
has been re-worked or it's a new PR that's never been reviewed.
My impression is that having the "Reworked" tag would make simpler for
people to jump in and do a follow-up review on what has been addressed
in the first round(s) of review and then give their ACK instead of
just leaving it for the reviewer. Of course, the same can be achieved
without that tag ... so, it's just something that looks more
"organized" to me.
OK, if this is something that was hitting you, maybe the tag might make sense.
But, then do you volunteer to maintain these tags? Because since I didn’t see
this as a problem, I’m afraid at least I wouldn’t maintain the tags.
The problem is that github does not sent any notifications that new
patches were pushed and it does not show in the PR list. So we can use
this tag to notify reviewers that new patches are pushed, but also
please always write comment there since I don't usually go through webui
but only through notification mails.
Does the suggestion make sense? In case we have an agreement about
this topic, may I re-tag our PRs and start using those new tags from
new PRs?
Another tag I was thinking of was “passes downstream tests”. With the amount of
time our downstream tests take, I’m not even sure how to integrate them with
the usual github flow like travis or centos CI use. So I was thinking about a
bot that would nightly scan PRs that have neither “pass” or “fail” tag, bundle
those up in an RPM, run the nightly tests and report back using a tag.
I really like the idea!
Another tag that may be added is something like "Urgent" for PRs that
are *really* *needed* for some specific reason (downstream, release,
etc …)
Umm, fine, but how would others find out the list of urgent PRs? Isn’t it then
easier to drop a mail to the list?
I would not overcomplicate it. Urgent PRs -> irc ping.
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
