From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 476B13858C62 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:32:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 476B13858C62 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id r134so5667945iod.8 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:32:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:to:subject:from:to:cc :subject:date; bh=AxSjLHGYQCJjPLukwjM8bK2wSvZLFRywtXRtynGnIfI=; b=Lrdbbkx1gZET2b83zaGReitfh5zHLIYe0ur847ZgUm0YVrh3G/oXpjq0jqLmagm/o6 TB5/JIW5dxnIoGn8/1ZeEZopv24+k3A5tcHttzvkxCZXwB95B0dT/R3d63+rpgBNULpC 9jbY6CXvNx8A4ii0xEhoUXDCpH9kZHMfZR6Z1fYV5Nq7699VubpdEXd9UQtoTNB7zXDj 4T6m9UV73bOh4xJB8mtD0ciJqNGs3RRCoP+ZTOq07AsHDk5W6gavqG886sn6OJUbL7aR IippfrEFxxhtiXPRPFDlE+0lZZgXTEcH1g58TsMSG0ArQ2KZ9jdz2Yn2zQm6t3MI//VV GUmg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:to:subject :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=AxSjLHGYQCJjPLukwjM8bK2wSvZLFRywtXRtynGnIfI=; b=yGB3OwoAT80vYFjlo3Fdr3aBxredkbR1c/t5RXRgQqfn8CE1lc9uiM7iy/EOeVl9c/ eZ2Z87QcELpolIk/z6RF7fdcyiPj+SnNecQ86msWjDNrf8l5q5r0NOw6PfEHQ6aeUJno 9ahD9va70Z8oVc8n1Hr7Tx3peLk0/balPYJywkKfKQfU8bkvjaEfUd/87XoxMzLPObfj wavWs4M3fu4emV+be98wKuPkxzvueLeHmnnlhN8ARs+W2sJR4kNCizmUYjiVIapA9AlQ KDwnVEVnG5NKwjFtdt85pMfCSAmJJQTbv8SgmMuD9+HMrfrURZxojIensZtPwp1lRNDE +PWw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3rRWSWDkKB9GbTOM+vhMUf7/KKtC6iF+DyC1Ua+rKj9op7TVxi tiNnorqLgEAIGSZrqzCicJY0RfuV+kM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6HmfwpGYBvFwta3Ib/G3MeTT7CkE58caaENzSUvQicN91o5wBrl0GWFIDkuhXX724wtIMhtA== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:4915:0:b0:689:e3bc:6056 with SMTP id u21-20020a6b4915000000b00689e3bc6056mr9844651iob.187.1664209974253; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:281:8300:73:50c6:ab24:6d09:749a? ([2601:281:8300:73:50c6:ab24:6d09:749a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c69-20020a02964b000000b0035a41631f28sm6964639jai.78.2022.09.26.09.32.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow. To: Luis Machado , Bruno Larsen , gdb@sourceware.org References: From: Elena Zannoni Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:32:52 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: One thing to do possibly is to take a look at what the kernel does in this area, with the tags for inspiration: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html (middle of the page). The key-signed patch workflow is also worth looking at to implement. elena On 9/26/22 9:59 AM, Luis Machado via Gdb wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > Thanks for putting this together. I think this is an improvement to the > current review workflow, and I > think it would be a positive update. > > On 9/21/22 12:04, Bruno Larsen via Gdb wrote: >> TL;DR: I want to introduce the usage of 3 new review tags to the GDB >> patch review workflow. They are: Reviewed-by, Approved-by and Tested-by. >> >> * Reviewed-by would be used by reviewers such as myself, who may look >> over the code but don't have the authority to approve it for pushing, >> essentially working as a +1. >> >> * Approved-by would be used by maintainers who have the authority to >> approve code for pushing when they want to do so. Referenced as a +2 >> later in this email. >> >> * Tested-by would be used by new contributors or reviewers who aren't >> familiar with the code touched by a given patch, but who are able to >> verify that the test doesn't introduce regressions. >> >> I will now dive into motivation and specifics of the proposal. >> >> ---- >> >> Motivation: As a new contributor, I see 4 main issues with the current >> patch review workflow: >> >> 1. It is sometimes hard to be sure that the reviewer has approved your >> patch, exemplified by a few recent patches which were already approved >> and were still pinged by their authors, such as >> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-August/191474.html >> 2. Patch review as it is now looks rather thankless. Sometimes a patch >> may go through various rounds of review, taking a lot of time from the >> contributor and reviewer, but if the latter never suggested enough >> code to warrant a Co-Authored-By tag, the only person mentioned at the >> final commit will be the original writer. I have personally wanted to >> thank reviewers who were especially helpful in understanding issues. >> 3. As a new contributor, it is not always obvious when a LGTM means >> the patch can be pushed. While one can always check the maintainers >> file, it would be nice if this information was baked into a review. >> 4. On the other hand, it's not always obvious to new reviewers >> (non-approvers) that their LGTM makes any difference, possibly >> discouraging them from giving positive feedback and making the >> community feel less lively than it is. >> >> Adding Reviewed-by (R-b) tags by itself would solve the first 2 >> issues, since it only is given once the review is finished and the >> patch is good to go from the reviewer's perspective. Approved-by (A-b) >> tags were mentioned during the GDB BoF at Cauldron 2022, as a way to >> fix issues 3 and 4, along with allowing for maintainers to give only >> +1, instead of +2, when they are not sure about a certain change. >> Tested-by (T-b) were also mentioned at the BoF as a way to give >> another option for new reviewers, especially if they have different >> hardware or setups. >> >> >> The workflow: The basic usage is as simple as I explained above, if >> all a reviewer is comfortable with doing is confirming that the error >> is fixed and testing for regression, they can reply with a T-b tag; if >> they are comfortable sharing a positive opinion on the proposed code, >> but can't approve or are not sure if the patch should be approved, >> they can reply with an R-b tag; and if they wish to approve a patch, >> they reply with A-p. >> >> Questions arose when thinking of new versions of a given patch. The >> workflow used by Glibc, which inspired great part of this proposal, >> makes it so the tags are dropped only when a patch has been >> "sufficiently changed". Cosmetic things like fixing typos or moving a >> proposed function from one place to another would not invalidate R-b >> tags, while reworking the solution would. The submitter has some space >> to decide that they think the patch has changed enough to warrant a >> new review (and invalidate the previous R-b), or the reviewer may ask >> their tag to be removed if they disagree with a change. >> >> In case the explanation is not clear, the follow example shows how >> these would be used in a fictional patch that requires 3 versions >> before it is ready. >> >> --- >> >> From: newcontributorcom >> Subject: [PATCH] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> I fixed bug number PR/XXXXX by making GDB kick and scream instead of >> failing silently. >> >> --- >> >> From: newreviewercom >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> I'm not sure how good this solution is, but I verified that in my >> setup this doesn't regress anything and fixes the issue. >> Tested-by: New Reviewer reviewercom> >> >> --- >> >> From: otherreviewercom >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> The solution looks good, but I have some style nits, see below. >> >> --- >> >> From: newcontributorcom >> Subject: [PATCHv2] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> I fixed bug number PR/XXXXX by making GDB kick and scream instead of >> failing silently. >> Tested-by: New Reviewer reviewercom> >> >> --- >> >> From: otherreviewercom >> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> Thanks, this looks good now! >> >> Reviewed-by: Other Contributor contributorcom> >> >> --- >> >> From: approvergdbcom >> Subject: [PATCHv2] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> I don't think this is a good solution, because you haven't fixed the >> problem, just complained about it. Please ensure that the patch makes >> GDB behave correctly with this input, though I'm not opposed to >> keeping the warning for other unexpected errors. >> >> --- >> >> From: newcontributorcom >> Subject: [PATCHv3] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> I fixed bug number PR/XXXXX by making GDB work as expected, and also >> added a warning for unexpected inputs. >> >> --- >> >> From: othermaintainercom >> Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> Hi! This patch still looks good. >> R-b: Other Maintainer maintainercom> >> >> --- >> >> From: approvergdbcom >> Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> I like this solution much better, thank you! >> Approved-by: Approver gdbcom> >> >> --- >> >> From: newcontributorcom >> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHv3] Fix GDB's behavior >> >> Thank you, I pushed it! >> >