From: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
To: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>,
"gdb@sourceware.org" <gdb@sourceware.org>,
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
Subject: Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF?
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 10:17:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <73437941-3b2f-d144-62b2-2e9f02430c76@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c48cb80e-9043-1d6d-608d-131c66fe5773@arm.com>
On 10/31/22 09:28, Luis Machado wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 10/28/22 17:16, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> On 2022-10-27 06 h 47, Luis Machado via Gdb wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Having suggested a few topics for the GDB BoF (I noticed they were discussed, to some extent), are there
>>> any concrete plans from the GDB global maintainers (leadership? I don't know how to call it) to address
>>> some of those concerns?
>>>
>>> Simon was kind enough to cleanup the patchworks instance, though that is not yet fully integrated into
>>> something we can easily use to do tests/CI. I see the number of unreviewed patches is growing again.
>>>
>>> For example, it is not easy to pick a patch to review. You need to locate the entry in your inbox so you
>>> can reply to it.
>>
>> I do not know of a way to trigger CI tests from Patchwork, that would
>> perhaps be a question for Mark (added in CC).
>>
>> On a personal note, coming back from the Cauldron, I set myself a goal
>> to do more reviews as part of my daily work. I'm trying to do around 1
>> hour a day of upstream reviews, and to choose what to review, I use
>> patchwork, sorting patches by oldest date. I check if the patch I'm
>> looking at has already been reviewed, merged, or superseded by a new
>> version, and if so I update its status. Rinse and repeat until I find a
>> patch that needs reviewing. Otherwise, just looking at my inbox's
>> gdb-patches folder with thousands of unread messages, I don't know what
>> to start with. Just by myself, I certainly won't get through the whole
>> list of patches pending review, but I think it is a somewhat fair
>> algorithm. So in that regard, patchwork is useful for me.
>>
>> I wanted to send an announcement on the list to say "hey, patchwork has
>> been cleaned, let's use it!", but I have been procrastinating since I
>> came back.
>
> I think those of us usually chatting on IRC are aware that you restarted it, so thanks for doing that.
>
> With that said, John Baldwin exposed some valid points. I also find the Patchwork workflow and interface odd and hard
> to work with. I can't simply pick up a random patch and easily review it like I did with Gerrit, for example. I need to go
> out of my way to find it there, look for the mailing list entry etc.
>
> I feel this goes a bit against enabling non-maintainers to do code reviews. The current workflow, though it works nicely
> for some, is quite limited and very prone to letting patches be forgotten at the end of the list. There are better ways to
> get this done these days.
>
> The PING mechanism, for example, is a burden. It is more manual work that you need to remember to do. On the other hand, if patches are
> archived in a good way in some system, it is just a matter of someone spotting it in a list and reviewing it.
>
> For instance, someone may have 5 minutes to spare. This person might go and look for a smaller patch to review, make comments inline
> and go off to do something else.
>
> In summary, even though glibc uses patchworks, it might not be the case it is the best tool for the GDB community. We seem
> to be short on reviewers (maintainers and non-maintainers). Enabling more non-maintainers to do reviews seems like a positive
> move towards a more efficient development process upstream.
>
> Some people admittedly don't like gerrit, but the tool has a lot of benefits, plus it integrates very nicely with Jenkins. And we need
> to have continuous testing back for GDB development, otherwise we risk having targets getting silently broken. It is reasonable to say one
> can't guarantee things won't break based solely on code reviews.
>
>>
>>> On formatting, have we considered the benefit of using clang-format for GDB, therefore potentially saving lots of time
>>> in reviews not having to worry about formatting?
>>
>> This often comes up, I am all for it. We need someone to write up a
>> proposal of how this would work (a bit like Bruno did for the
>> attribution tags). I might get to it, but I don't promise anything.
>
> I can do it. I know some of us tried it already. Tom Tromey seems to have done it as well.
>
> I think this is another step towards getting the contribution burden off of contributors. Formatting should not be
> something one needs to spend time with. One space x two spaces, 80 columns x 100 columns are certainly not as important
> as code that does what needs to be done and improves GDB overall.
>
> Also, there are lots of different code styles out there. It is not unusual to have GDB contributors doing other work on
> a project with different formatting standards. Having to remember formatting nits is not very pleasant nor efficient it seems.
FTR, this is still on my TODO list. Hopefully I can get some spare cycles to submit something in the coming weeks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-15 10:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-27 10:47 Luis Machado
2022-10-28 16:16 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-28 16:51 ` John Baldwin
2022-10-28 16:54 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-31 9:28 ` Luis Machado
2022-10-31 13:17 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-31 13:37 ` Joel Brobecker
2022-10-31 14:15 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-31 17:31 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-11 17:13 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-12 12:43 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-02-13 11:54 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-13 12:52 ` Luis Machado
2023-02-13 14:24 ` Tom Tromey
2023-02-13 14:42 ` Luis Machado
2023-02-13 15:13 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-13 15:23 ` Luis Machado
2023-02-14 5:48 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-15 14:47 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-16 4:14 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-16 9:51 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-02-16 10:16 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-16 11:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-02-16 13:31 ` Joel Brobecker
2023-02-16 15:23 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-02-14 13:07 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-02-14 14:23 ` Pedro Alves
2023-02-14 13:00 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-02-15 14:36 ` Andrew Burgess
2023-02-13 14:05 ` Tom Tromey
2022-12-15 10:17 ` Luis Machado [this message]
2023-01-01 22:02 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-01-20 17:30 ` Tom Tromey
2023-01-20 20:30 ` Tom Tromey
2023-01-27 15:50 ` Lancelot SIX
2023-01-27 23:50 ` Tom Tromey
2023-01-30 17:43 ` Lancelot SIX
2023-01-30 18:46 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-01-30 21:08 ` Tom Tromey
2023-02-04 11:36 ` Mark Wielaard
2023-01-31 10:00 ` Lancelot SIX
2022-12-13 2:48 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2023-02-16 8:53 anix
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=73437941-3b2f-d144-62b2-2e9f02430c76@arm.com \
--to=luis.machado@arm.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=jhb@FreeBSD.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=simark@simark.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).