rfc@edk2.groups.io | [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Home Messages Hashtags

Date Date 1 - 13 of 13

[EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...> #283 As a counterpoint: if we force a new branch or force push on every tweak, we lose the “thread” of discussion on what caused the change, what changed as a result, and the easy hook for the original change requester to reply directly to the change as is. - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek via groups.io<mailto:lersek@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:39 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process On 05/09/20 04:59, Michael D Kinney wrote: Hello, This is a proposal to change from the current email-based code review process to a GitHub pull request-based code review process for all repositories maintained in TianoCore. The current email-based code review process and commit message requirements are documented in Readme.md or Readme.rst at the root of repositories along with a few Wiki pages: * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FReadMe.rst&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=lVjWRLsBC3xJpyRFeDrGjFhMOzAgi2V3vsAPxj7lIDw%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development-Process&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=sgAhQxCpyjmzC%2FW%2BFiLLwaF2M8wscBz3k93ne25qUXs%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=eHP9fcPMw6yjqTU%2B%2BUZ3FZkq8jZeM1LTU6dGTzmFp4Q%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message-Format&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=uq8G6nGyLpa7m%2F0fD2pwrcM9uixbKs6SLTge8e77M%2FY%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature-Format&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Mz8dUn2L8dFwJdlo4LbaIKt2JrWE%2Fn4tBtVWenK%2F8Ck%3D&reserved=0 The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pull request and perform all code review activity using the GitHub web interface. This proposal does not change any licenses or commit message requirements. It does require all developers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHub accounts. One requirement that was collected from previous discussions on this topic is the need for an email archive of all patches and code review activities. The existing GitHub features to produce an email archive were deemed insufficient. A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has been implemented to provide the email archive service. This email archive is read-only. You will not be able to send emails to this archive or reply to emails in the archive. The sections below provide more details on the proposed GitHub pull request based code review process, details on the email archive service, and a set of remaining tasks make the email archive service production quality. It does not make sense to support both the existing email-based code review and the GitHub pull request-based code review at the same time. Instead, this proposal is to switch to the GitHub pull request-based code review and retire the email based code review process on the same date. The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requests today to run automated CI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainer to set the `push` label to request the changes to be merged if all CI checks pass. With this proposal, once the code review is complete and the commit messages have been updated, the same pull request can be used to perform a final set of CI checks and merge the changes into the master branch. I would like to collect feedback on this proposal and the email archive service over the next two weeks with close of comments on Friday May 22, 2020. If all issues and concerns can be addressed, then I would like to see the community agree to make this change as soon as all remaining tasks are completed. # TianoCore Repositories to enable * [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-platforms](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-platforms&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=g8mgGL6B%2FRsvm3935OpZMctOTKUoeHGi8jPuCVKQjbI%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-non-osi](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non-osi&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=9lrEsZWOpc3wqylKs7yF%2FzxYwZsUUamP3oUrWDWcHCc%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-test](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-test&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=8v205MD3HTYg3yLmGJS3SIDA5um9sVJfOa5CXViZjyU%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-libc](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-libc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Tzt293HJzFnGSkh1mUBew8dAsaZ4axWq2ml8UhQ%2FSTI%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-staging](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-staging&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=bcNbt7Y7KoBrcnW4fAc4jbGgJL%2B4lYUkVLhYNo37OiM%3D&reserved=0) # GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process NOTE: All steps below use [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0) as an example. Several repositories are supported. ## Author/Developer Steps * Create a personal fork of [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetting-started-with-github%2Ffork-a-repo&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=umI3eqOh03qmt9YlPo33ujypu90YwImAvuxh5SlrM%2Bw%3D&reserved=0 * Create a new branch from edk2/master in personal fork of edk2 repository. * Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix to new branch. Make sure to follow the commit message format requirements. The only change with this RFC is that the Cc: lines to maintainers/reviewers should not be added. The Cc: lines are still supported, but they should only be used to add reviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are not members of TianoCore. * Push branch with new commits to personal fork * Create a pull request against TianoCore edk2/master https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcreating-a-pull-request&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=2GVrQy0FGwd4CCeGveh99HL3zS1ekRfAAaKhhRiOMpU%3D&reserved=0 * If pull request has more than 1 commit, then fill in the pull request title and decryption information for Patch #0. Do not leave defaults. s/decryption/description/ (Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.) * Do not assign reviewers. The webhook assigns maintainers and reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. * If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback that requires changes, then make add commits to the current branch with the requested changes. Once all s/make add/add/ changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series and commit comments as needed for perform a forced push to the branch in the personal fork of the edk2 repository. This step may be repeated if multiple versions of the patch series are required to address all code review feedback. Do I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first push incremental patches on top of the series, then do a rebase (squashing updates as necessary) and finally do a force-push, for the next round of review? To me as a reviewer, that's extra work. I'm used to locally comparing the v(n) patch set to v(n+1) with git-range-diff, and/or with some personal scripts. I wouldn't encourage incremental patches appended -- even temporarily -- to the branch, because (a) it's extra review work (it requires me to review something that has zero chance to get into the git history as-is), and (b) it superficially resembles the github.com-specific bad practice called "squash on merge", and (c) it runs the risk that the maintainer responsible for ultimately merging the series ends up actually merging the incremental (= "fixup") patches in isolation (without squashing them). OPEN: How should minimum review period be set? Labels? Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require reviewers to start providing their feedback within one week. One thing that I find important is that a maintainer can signal "I got your work in my queue, but I may need more time". And a special case of that are automated out-of-office responses. I think they are very helpful (when a contributor feels they are bottlenecked on review), but I'm not sure how one can configure that via github. I certainly would not share my out-of-office times with github. (I set the start/end dates in my email infrastructure, at the moment, but the out-of-office messages it sends do not contain the dates either, on purpose.) ## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Steps * Receive an event that a new pull request was opened * Evaluate the files modified by the entire pull request and each commit in the pull request and cross references against `Maintainters.txt` in the root s/cross references/cross reference them/ ? of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. Individual commit assignments are performed by adding a commit comment of the following form: [CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney * Generate and sends git patch review emails to the email archive. Emails s/sends/send/ are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages. * If the author/developer performs a forced push to the branch in their personal fork of the edk2 repository, then a new set of patch review emails with patch series Vx is sent to the email archive and any Cc: tags in commit messages. * Receive events associated with all code review activities and generate and send emails to the email archive that shows all review comments and all responses closely matching the email contents seen in the current email based code review process. * Generate and send email when pull request is merged or closed. ## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps * Make sure GitHub configuration is setup to 'Watch' the repositories that you have maintainer ship or review responsibilities and that email s/maintainer ship/maintainership/ notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notifications when a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a pull request and individual commits. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fmanaging-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github%2Fconfiguring-notifications&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=OlkiyymcQi39P8%2FOJZG4yjh4h%2FHerkHBe5bCSQQFLOU%3D&reserved=0 * Subscribe to the email archive associated with the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=0 Important: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list, for now. Once we're ready to switch over, I'll file an internal ticket at RH to either rename the list, or (which is probably better) to create a new list (no "-poc" suffix). The second option seems more useful because then the webhook development / bugfixing (if any) could perhaps occur in parallel to the normal edk2 workflow. * Review pull requests and commits assigned by the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service and use the GitHub web UI to provide all review feedback. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Freviewing-changes-in-pull-requests&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=51Ljm3wUbBTWT8hcaBD1ZQznSROvAQqnoTzQmD6K%2FLY%3D&reserved=0 * Wait for Author/Developer to respond to all feedback and add commits with code changes as needed to resolve all feedback. This step may be repeated if the developer/author need to produce multiple versions of the patch series to address all feedback. (same question about the incremental fixup patches as above) * Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Tested-by responses on individual commits. Or add Series-reviewed-by, Series-acked-by, or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire pull request. * Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commit messages in the pull request. * Perform final review of patches and commit message tags. If there are not issues, set the `push` label to run final set of CI checks and auto merge the pull request into master. # Maintainers.txt Format Changes Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers at the end of M: and R: lines in []. For example: M: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@...> [mdkinney] # TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull request based on assignments documented in Maintainers.txt and generates an email archive of all pull request and code review activities. s/generates/generate/ (or s/Assign/Assigns/) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email-archive-webhook&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=7CJNJMEXrxoynjavmEwjzUyRbfNUIZ3FEG4kDRXvhI4%3D&reserved=0 # Email Archive Subscription Service The emails are being delivered to the following RedHat email subscription service. Please subscribe to receive the emails and to be able to view the email archives. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=0 The email archives are at this link: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2Findex.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=nedUfkmMmI5T6GtAxQCW4q6xt38%2FezeDYmfq6cpRD0M%3D&reserved=0 The following sections show some example pull requests and code reviews to help review the generated emails, their contents, and threading. ## Email Achieve Thread View https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300289&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=GtrEudehfXiSU6ZwH2zKO35CPPPVk0ctZIzhkpI6DkE%3D&reserved=0 ## Example patch series with 1 patch https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300340&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=ZGpI8%2BzIA9OMFm3pSCc2DQ4F5ZxtDSAXtjdFjD%2BY3NA%3D&reserved=0 ## Example patch series with < 10 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00289.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=JyaUyvYfZD7b%2F2wN%2BpS%2B68b%2BwyKoZ3Rba4ol%2FyahQVU%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00030.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=bQHIJIQq4Pri8iK3vPxMDMWz%2BKtXcyuPdhr8y7gFpXA%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00018.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=uMIRGOq%2BVCOSwDzXkG4yueYS4ZJ7BWfsp3Z4%2B9lh6hE%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00008.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=3CBkdqDxRt4IxtECpWQdKJL%2Bf4HFqqHCXo4loxNTzAE%3D&reserved=0 ## Example patch series with > 80 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00198.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=fDfQnifOMzyzLMdP4xH8koKCiSj7ZiuYyrrSZXTf3d4%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00116.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=lcxA3tTna%2BdmTpcNMmPlS%2B47llMAcIEjhCEqxV7TDOc%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00035.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=CgvZ8e%2B7L4nacvRE35KqEyC%2F1CjDYP6wI10qn%2BoX39Y%3D&reserved=0 # Tasks to Complete * Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of new code review process. * Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2-codereview repository * Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to be compatible with GitHub IDs at the end of M: and R: statements * Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests and emails * Determine if webhook requests must be serialized? Current POC is serialized. * Make sure webhook has error handling for all unexpected events/states. * Add logging of all events and emails to webhook The logging sounds very useful, thank you. Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the message-id of that email, if possible. * Add admin interface to webhook * Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7 support # Ideas for Future Enhancements * Run PatchCheck.py before assigning maintainers/reviewers. * Add a simple check that fails if a single patch spans more than one package. Hmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this rule. * Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Reviewed-by, Series-Acked-by, Series-Tested-by made by assigned maintainers/reviewers. Once all commits have required tags, auto update commit messages in the branch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push` label to run CI and auto merge if all CI checks pass. Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)! Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Michael D Kinney #284 Hi Bret, This is a good point. What I am proposing is the first version of the patch series submitted as a pull request. Let the community do a complete review of the content. The submitter can add patches to the end of the pull request addressing feedback and can even add patches that make changes to previous patches until all feedback/conversations are resolved. This keeps the conversations complete and the conversations will also be archived to the email archive. At this point, the developer can reformulate the patch series and do forced push of V2. Reviewers can review the cleaned up patch series and repeat the process if there is more feedback, or move to final approval. By doing all the work on a single pull request, we minimize the total number of pull requests in the repo. An alternative approach would be to open a new pull request for each new version of the series. This would preserve the GitHub conversations for each version of the pull request. All the earlier ones would be closed/abandoned, and only the final one would be closed/merged. Best regards, Mike From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:10 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@...; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process As a counterpoint: if we force a new branch or force push on every tweak, we lose the “thread” of discussion on what caused the change, what changed as a result, and the easy hook for the original change requester to reply directly to the change as is. - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek via groups.io<mailto:lersek@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:39 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process On 05/09/20 04:59, Michael D Kinney wrote: Hello, This is a proposal to change from the current email-based code review process to a GitHub pull request-based code review process for all repositories maintained in TianoCore. The current email-based code review process and commit message requirements are documented in Readme.md or Readme.rst at the root of repositories along with a few Wiki pages: * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FReadMe.rst&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=lVjWRLsBC3xJpyRFeDrGjFhMOzAgi2V3vsAPxj7lIDw%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development-Process&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=sgAhQxCpyjmzC%2FW%2BFiLLwaF2M8wscBz3k93ne25qUXs%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=eHP9fcPMw6yjqTU%2B%2BUZ3FZkq8jZeM1LTU6dGTzmFp4Q%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message-Format&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=uq8G6nGyLpa7m%2F0fD2pwrcM9uixbKs6SLTge8e77M%2FY%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature-Format&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Mz8dUn2L8dFwJdlo4LbaIKt2JrWE%2Fn4tBtVWenK%2F8Ck%3D&reserved=0 The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pull request and perform all code review activity using the GitHub web interface. This proposal does not change any licenses or commit message requirements. It does require all developers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHub accounts. One requirement that was collected from previous discussions on this topic is the need for an email archive of all patches and code review activities. The existing GitHub features to produce an email archive were deemed insufficient. A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has been implemented to provide the email archive service. This email archive is read-only. You will not be able to send emails to this archive or reply to emails in the archive. The sections below provide more details on the proposed GitHub pull request based code review process, details on the email archive service, and a set of remaining tasks make the email archive service production quality. It does not make sense to support both the existing email-based code review and the GitHub pull request-based code review at the same time. Instead, this proposal is to switch to the GitHub pull request-based code review and retire the email based code review process on the same date. The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requests today to run automated CI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainer to set the `push` label to request the changes to be merged if all CI checks pass. With this proposal, once the code review is complete and the commit messages have been updated, the same pull request can be used to perform a final set of CI checks and merge the changes into the master branch. I would like to collect feedback on this proposal and the email archive service over the next two weeks with close of comments on Friday May 22, 2020. If all issues and concerns can be addressed, then I would like to see the community agree to make this change as soon as all remaining tasks are completed. # TianoCore Repositories to enable * [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-platforms](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-platforms&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=g8mgGL6B%2FRsvm3935OpZMctOTKUoeHGi8jPuCVKQjbI%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-non-osi](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non-osi&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=9lrEsZWOpc3wqylKs7yF%2FzxYwZsUUamP3oUrWDWcHCc%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-test](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-test&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=8v205MD3HTYg3yLmGJS3SIDA5um9sVJfOa5CXViZjyU%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-libc](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-libc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Tzt293HJzFnGSkh1mUBew8dAsaZ4axWq2ml8UhQ%2FSTI%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-staging](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-staging&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=bcNbt7Y7KoBrcnW4fAc4jbGgJL%2B4lYUkVLhYNo37OiM%3D&reserved=0) # GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process NOTE: All steps below use [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0) as an example. Several repositories are supported. ## Author/Developer Steps * Create a personal fork of [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetting-started-with-github%2Ffork-a-repo&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=umI3eqOh03qmt9YlPo33ujypu90YwImAvuxh5SlrM%2Bw%3D&reserved=0 * Create a new branch from edk2/master in personal fork of edk2 repository. * Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix to new branch. Make sure to follow the commit message format requirements. The only change with this RFC is that the Cc: lines to maintainers/reviewers should not be added. The Cc: lines are still supported, but they should only be used to add reviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are not members of TianoCore. * Push branch with new commits to personal fork * Create a pull request against TianoCore edk2/master https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcreating-a-pull-request&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=2GVrQy0FGwd4CCeGveh99HL3zS1ekRfAAaKhhRiOMpU%3D&reserved=0 * If pull request has more than 1 commit, then fill in the pull request title and decryption information for Patch #0. Do not leave defaults. s/decryption/description/ (Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.) * Do not assign reviewers. The webhook assigns maintainers and reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. * If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback that requires changes, then make add commits to the current branch with the requested changes. Once all s/make add/add/ changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series and commit comments as needed for perform a forced push to the branch in the personal fork of the edk2 repository. This step may be repeated if multiple versions of the patch series are required to address all code review feedback. Do I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first push incremental patches on top of the series, then do a rebase (squashing updates as necessary) and finally do a force-push, for the next round of review? To me as a reviewer, that's extra work. I'm used to locally comparing the v(n) patch set to v(n+1) with git-range-diff, and/or with some personal scripts. I wouldn't encourage incremental patches appended -- even temporarily -- to the branch, because (a) it's extra review work (it requires me to review something that has zero chance to get into the git history as-is), and (b) it superficially resembles the github.com-specific bad practice called "squash on merge", and (c) it runs the risk that the maintainer responsible for ultimately merging the series ends up actually merging the incremental (= "fixup") patches in isolation (without squashing them). OPEN: How should minimum review period be set? Labels? Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require reviewers to start providing their feedback within one week. One thing that I find important is that a maintainer can signal "I got your work in my queue, but I may need more time". And a special case of that are automated out-of-office responses. I think they are very helpful (when a contributor feels they are bottlenecked on review), but I'm not sure how one can configure that via github. I certainly would not share my out-of-office times with github. (I set the start/end dates in my email infrastructure, at the moment, but the out-of-office messages it sends do not contain the dates either, on purpose.) ## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Steps * Receive an event that a new pull request was opened * Evaluate the files modified by the entire pull request and each commit in the pull request and cross references against `Maintainters.txt` in the root s/cross references/cross reference them/ ? of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. Individual commit assignments are performed by adding a commit comment of the following form: [CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney * Generate and sends git patch review emails to the email archive. Emails s/sends/send/ are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages. * If the author/developer performs a forced push to the branch in their personal fork of the edk2 repository, then a new set of patch review emails with patch series Vx is sent to the email archive and any Cc: tags in commit messages. * Receive events associated with all code review activities and generate and send emails to the email archive that shows all review comments and all responses closely matching the email contents seen in the current email based code review process. * Generate and send email when pull request is merged or closed. ## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps * Make sure GitHub configuration is setup to 'Watch' the repositories that you have maintainer ship or review responsibilities and that email s/maintainer ship/maintainership/ notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notifications when a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a pull request and individual commits. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fmanaging-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github%2Fconfiguring-notifications&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=OlkiyymcQi39P8%2FOJZG4yjh4h%2FHerkHBe5bCSQQFLOU%3D&reserved=0 * Subscribe to the email archive associated with the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=0 Important: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list, for now. Once we're ready to switch over, I'll file an internal ticket at RH to either rename the list, or (which is probably better) to create a new list (no "-poc" suffix). The second option seems more useful because then the webhook development / bugfixing (if any) could perhaps occur in parallel to the normal edk2 workflow. * Review pull requests and commits assigned by the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service and use the GitHub web UI to provide all review feedback. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Freviewing-changes-in-pull-requests&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=51Ljm3wUbBTWT8hcaBD1ZQznSROvAQqnoTzQmD6K%2FLY%3D&reserved=0 * Wait for Author/Developer to respond to all feedback and add commits with code changes as needed to resolve all feedback. This step may be repeated if the developer/author need to produce multiple versions of the patch series to address all feedback. (same question about the incremental fixup patches as above) * Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Tested-by responses on individual commits. Or add Series-reviewed-by, Series-acked-by, or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire pull request. * Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commit messages in the pull request. * Perform final review of patches and commit message tags. If there are not issues, set the `push` label to run final set of CI checks and auto merge the pull request into master. # Maintainers.txt Format Changes Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers at the end of M: and R: lines in []. For example: M: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@...<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>> [mdkinney] # TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull request based on assignments documented in Maintainers.txt and generates an email archive of all pull request and code review activities. s/generates/generate/ (or s/Assign/Assigns/) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email-archive-webhook&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=7CJNJMEXrxoynjavmEwjzUyRbfNUIZ3FEG4kDRXvhI4%3D&reserved=0 # Email Archive Subscription Service The emails are being delivered to the following RedHat email subscription service. Please subscribe to receive the emails and to be able to view the email archives. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=0 The email archives are at this link: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2Findex.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=nedUfkmMmI5T6GtAxQCW4q6xt38%2FezeDYmfq6cpRD0M%3D&reserved=0 The following sections show some example pull requests and code reviews to help review the generated emails, their contents, and threading. ## Email Achieve Thread View https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300289&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=GtrEudehfXiSU6ZwH2zKO35CPPPVk0ctZIzhkpI6DkE%3D&reserved=0 ## Example patch series with 1 patch https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300340&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=ZGpI8%2BzIA9OMFm3pSCc2DQ4F5ZxtDSAXtjdFjD%2BY3NA%3D&reserved=0 ## Example patch series with < 10 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00289.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=JyaUyvYfZD7b%2F2wN%2BpS%2B68b%2BwyKoZ3Rba4ol%2FyahQVU%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00030.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=bQHIJIQq4Pri8iK3vPxMDMWz%2BKtXcyuPdhr8y7gFpXA%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00018.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=uMIRGOq%2BVCOSwDzXkG4yueYS4ZJ7BWfsp3Z4%2B9lh6hE%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00008.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=3CBkdqDxRt4IxtECpWQdKJL%2Bf4HFqqHCXo4loxNTzAE%3D&reserved=0 ## Example patch series with > 80 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00198.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=fDfQnifOMzyzLMdP4xH8koKCiSj7ZiuYyrrSZXTf3d4%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00116.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=lcxA3tTna%2BdmTpcNMmPlS%2B47llMAcIEjhCEqxV7TDOc%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00035.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=CgvZ8e%2B7L4nacvRE35KqEyC%2F1CjDYP6wI10qn%2BoX39Y%3D&reserved=0 # Tasks to Complete * Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of new code review process. * Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2-codereview repository * Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to be compatible with GitHub IDs at the end of M: and R: statements * Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests and emails * Determine if webhook requests must be serialized? Current POC is serialized. * Make sure webhook has error handling for all unexpected events/states. * Add logging of all events and emails to webhook The logging sounds very useful, thank you. Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the message-id of that email, if possible. * Add admin interface to webhook * Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7 support # Ideas for Future Enhancements * Run PatchCheck.py before assigning maintainers/reviewers. * Add a simple check that fails if a single patch spans more than one package. Hmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this rule. * Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Reviewed-by, Series-Acked-by, Series-Tested-by made by assigned maintainers/reviewers. Once all commits have required tags, auto update commit messages in the branch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push` label to run CI and auto merge if all CI checks pass. Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)! Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Laszlo Ersek #285 On 05/11/20 22:09, Bret Barkelew wrote: As a counterpoint: if we force a new branch or force push on every tweak, we lose the â€œthreadâ€� of discussion on what caused the change, This is a github.com limitation. And the email archive mitigates it. In the current process, when I review v2 of a 10-part series, I have one Thunderbird window open with the v1 thread, containing both the v1 patches and my (and others') review comments given for them. (I open the new window by right-clicking the v1 blurb, and then selecting "open message in new window". Then I navigate between the messages of the v1 thread with the "f" and "b" hotkeys. The "scope" of the new window is set to the v1 thread, recursively, when I open the new window like that, and so "f" and "b" just do the right thing.) In another window, to the right side, I run "git-range-diff", to interdiff the v1 patches (patch by patch) with the v2 patches. (An interdiff is a diff of diffs.) Importantly, the interdiff also highlights commit message differences. I verify that all the feedback comments from the v1 thread have been addressed (per patch), and also that any otherwise "uncalled-for" changes in v2 are in fact justified. (The contributor may have justifiedly implemented further changes than what I requested under v1.) This is also the reason why I meticulously number my feedback comments, as I'm going to require a complete (one by one) coverage in the next version of the patch set. (Except for those comments of course that the contributor successfully refutes.) When the v2 series has different structure from v1, then git-range-diff is not as helpful -- in that case, I compare only a subset of the patches like described above, and the entirely new patches in v2 I have to review from zero. The entire process depends on having unfettered access to comments given for any earlier version of the patch set (it's not uncommon that I refer back to v(n-3) or v(n-2) when reviewing v(n)), with those comments being tightly bound (for display and for re-reading) to their subject patches. The github webui destroys (at least visually) the comments given before a force-push. I can't fathom how incremental reviews can work on github.com at all, in other projects. Hence my earlier suggestion to use new pull requests rather than force-pushes. But the mailing list archive generated by the webhook will solve this completely -- I will use that list as a primary review support tool (for v2, v3, ...), not only as an archive. ... After all, I guess I could reformulate like this: it's not my intent to prevent people from pushing incremental fixups temporarily; I'm only saying I will ignore those patches, and I will review only the next full version of the branch. My concern that does persist is this: "it runs the risk that the maintainer responsible for ultimately merging the series ends up actually merging the incremental (= "fixup") patches in isolation (without squashing them)". The git history should neither be littered with fixup patches, nor contain huge squashes. The structure of a patch series is a first class trait; it is an aspect to iterate upon, when a branch is being contributed. The tooling should support that. (And the list traffic generated by the webhook does.) For instance, the last time I've given feedback regarding patch series structure was just an hour ago, under the series "[PATCH V4 00/27] Disabling safe string constraint assertions". I requested moving a hunk from patch#1 to patch#26. Having the hunk in patch#1 does not break bisection, and it's irrelevant for the end-state after the whole series is applied (the end-state is the same). But the hunk still doesn't belong in patch#1 -- wherever we add a new bit to a bitmask PCD (patch#26), the UNI file (= documentation) udpate belongs in the exact same patch. what changed as a result, and the easy hook for the original change requester to reply directly to the change as is. No matter what I say about an incremental/fixup patch in isolation, things can easily go wrong when the contributor squashes the fixup into the more substantial patch that needs the fixup. Not to mention any commit message updates on the more substantial patch, as necessitated by the fixup. So I'll have to review the next full version of the topic branch anyway, with git-range-diff, and compare the interdiff against my earlier feedback. Thanks! Laszlo - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek via groups.io<mailto:lersek@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:39 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process On 05/09/20 04:59, Michael D Kinney wrote: Hello, This is a proposal to change from the current email-based code review process to a GitHub pull request-based code review process for all repositories maintained in TianoCore. The current email-based code review process and commit message requirements are documented in Readme.md or Readme.rst at the root of repositories along with a few Wiki pages: * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FReadMe.rst&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=lVjWRLsBC3xJpyRFeDrGjFhMOzAgi2V3vsAPxj7lIDw%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development-Process&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=sgAhQxCpyjmzC%2FW%2BFiLLwaF2M8wscBz3k93ne25qUXs%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=eHP9fcPMw6yjqTU%2B%2BUZ3FZkq8jZeM1LTU6dGTzmFp4Q%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message-Format&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=uq8G6nGyLpa7m%2F0fD2pwrcM9uixbKs6SLTge8e77M%2FY%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature-Format&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Mz8dUn2L8dFwJdlo4LbaIKt2JrWE%2Fn4tBtVWenK%2F8Ck%3D&reserved=0 The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pull request and perform all code review activity using the GitHub web interface. This proposal does not change any licenses or commit message requirements. It does require all developers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHub accounts. One requirement that was collected from previous discussions on this topic is the need for an email archive of all patches and code review activities. The existing GitHub features to produce an email archive were deemed insufficient. A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has been implemented to provide the email archive service. This email archive is read-only. You will not be able to send emails to this archive or reply to emails in the archive. The sections below provide more details on the proposed GitHub pull request based code review process, details on the email archive service, and a set of remaining tasks make the email archive service production quality. It does not make sense to support both the existing email-based code review and the GitHub pull request-based code review at the same time. Instead, this proposal is to switch to the GitHub pull request-based code review and retire the email based code review process on the same date. The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requests today to run automated CI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainer to set the `push` label to request the changes to be merged if all CI checks pass. With this proposal, once the code review is complete and the commit messages have been updated, the same pull request can be used to perform a final set of CI checks and merge the changes into the master branch. I would like to collect feedback on this proposal and the email archive service over the next two weeks with close of comments on Friday May 22, 2020. If all issues and concerns can be addressed, then I would like to see the community agree to make this change as soon as all remaining tasks are completed. # TianoCore Repositories to enable * [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-platforms](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-platforms&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=g8mgGL6B%2FRsvm3935OpZMctOTKUoeHGi8jPuCVKQjbI%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-non-osi](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non-osi&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=9lrEsZWOpc3wqylKs7yF%2FzxYwZsUUamP3oUrWDWcHCc%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-test](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-test&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=8v205MD3HTYg3yLmGJS3SIDA5um9sVJfOa5CXViZjyU%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-libc](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-libc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Tzt293HJzFnGSkh1mUBew8dAsaZ4axWq2ml8UhQ%2FSTI%3D&reserved=0) * [edk2-staging](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-staging&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=bcNbt7Y7KoBrcnW4fAc4jbGgJL%2B4lYUkVLhYNo37OiM%3D&reserved=0) # GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process NOTE: All steps below use [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0) as an example. Several repositories are supported. ## Author/Developer Steps * Create a personal fork of [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetting-started-with-github%2Ffork-a-repo&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=umI3eqOh03qmt9YlPo33ujypu90YwImAvuxh5SlrM%2Bw%3D&reserved=0 * Create a new branch from edk2/master in personal fork of edk2 repository. * Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix to new branch. Make sure to follow the commit message format requirements. The only change with this RFC is that the Cc: lines to maintainers/reviewers should not be added. The Cc: lines are still supported, but they should only be used to add reviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are not members of TianoCore. * Push branch with new commits to personal fork * Create a pull request against TianoCore edk2/master https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcreating-a-pull-request&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=2GVrQy0FGwd4CCeGveh99HL3zS1ekRfAAaKhhRiOMpU%3D&reserved=0 * If pull request has more than 1 commit, then fill in the pull request title and decryption information for Patch #0. Do not leave defaults. s/decryption/description/ (Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.) * Do not assign reviewers. The webhook assigns maintainers and reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. * If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback that requires changes, then make add commits to the current branch with the requested changes. Once all s/make add/add/ changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series and commit comments as needed for perform a forced push to the branch in the personal fork of the edk2 repository. This step may be repeated if multiple versions of the patch series are required to address all code review feedback. Do I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first push incremental patches on top of the series, then do a rebase (squashing updates as necessary) and finally do a force-push, for the next round of review? To me as a reviewer, that's extra work. I'm used to locally comparing the v(n) patch set to v(n+1) with git-range-diff, and/or with some personal scripts. I wouldn't encourage incremental patches appended -- even temporarily -- to the branch, because (a) it's extra review work (it requires me to review something that has zero chance to get into the git history as-is), and (b) it superficially resembles the github.com-specific bad practice called "squash on merge", and (c) it runs the risk that the maintainer responsible for ultimately merging the series ends up actually merging the incremental (= "fixup") patches in isolation (without squashing them). OPEN: How should minimum review period be set? Labels? Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require reviewers to start providing their feedback within one week. One thing that I find important is that a maintainer can signal "I got your work in my queue, but I may need more time". And a special case of that are automated out-of-office responses. I think they are very helpful (when a contributor feels they are bottlenecked on review), but I'm not sure how one can configure that via github. I certainly would not share my out-of-office times with github. (I set the start/end dates in my email infrastructure, at the moment, but the out-of-office messages it sends do not contain the dates either, on purpose.) ## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Steps * Receive an event that a new pull request was opened * Evaluate the files modified by the entire pull request and each commit in the pull request and cross references against `Maintainters.txt` in the root s/cross references/cross reference them/ ? of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. Individual commit assignments are performed by adding a commit comment of the following form: [CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney * Generate and sends git patch review emails to the email archive. Emails s/sends/send/ are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages. * If the author/developer performs a forced push to the branch in their personal fork of the edk2 repository, then a new set of patch review emails with patch series Vx is sent to the email archive and any Cc: tags in commit messages. * Receive events associated with all code review activities and generate and send emails to the email archive that shows all review comments and all responses closely matching the email contents seen in the current email based code review process. * Generate and send email when pull request is merged or closed. ## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps * Make sure GitHub configuration is setup to 'Watch' the repositories that you have maintainer ship or review responsibilities and that email s/maintainer ship/maintainership/ notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notifications when a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a pull request and individual commits. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fmanaging-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github%2Fconfiguring-notifications&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=OlkiyymcQi39P8%2FOJZG4yjh4h%2FHerkHBe5bCSQQFLOU%3D&reserved=0 * Subscribe to the email archive associated with the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=0 Important: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list, for now. Once we're ready to switch over, I'll file an internal ticket at RH to either rename the list, or (which is probably better) to create a new list (no "-poc" suffix). The second option seems more useful because then the webhook development / bugfixing (if any) could perhaps occur in parallel to the normal edk2 workflow. * Review pull requests and commits assigned by the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service and use the GitHub web UI to provide all review feedback. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Freviewing-changes-in-pull-requests&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=51Ljm3wUbBTWT8hcaBD1ZQznSROvAQqnoTzQmD6K%2FLY%3D&reserved=0 * Wait for Author/Developer to respond to all feedback and add commits with code changes as needed to resolve all feedback. This step may be repeated if the developer/author need to produce multiple versions of the patch series to address all feedback. (same question about the incremental fixup patches as above) * Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Tested-by responses on individual commits. Or add Series-reviewed-by, Series-acked-by, or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire pull request. * Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commit messages in the pull request. * Perform final review of patches and commit message tags. If there are not issues, set the `push` label to run final set of CI checks and auto merge the pull request into master. # Maintainers.txt Format Changes Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers at the end of M: and R: lines in []. For example: M: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@...> [mdkinney] # TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull request based on assignments documented in Maintainers.txt and generates an email archive of all pull request and code review activities. s/generates/generate/ (or s/Assign/Assigns/) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email-archive-webhook&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=7CJNJMEXrxoynjavmEwjzUyRbfNUIZ3FEG4kDRXvhI4%3D&reserved=0 # Email Archive Subscription Service The emails are being delivered to the following RedHat email subscription service. Please subscribe to receive the emails and to be able to view the email archives. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=0 The email archives are at this link: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2Findex.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=nedUfkmMmI5T6GtAxQCW4q6xt38%2FezeDYmfq6cpRD0M%3D&reserved=0 The following sections show some example pull requests and code reviews to help review the generated emails, their contents, and threading. ## Email Achieve Thread View https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300289&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=GtrEudehfXiSU6ZwH2zKO35CPPPVk0ctZIzhkpI6DkE%3D&reserved=0 ## Example patch series with 1 patch https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300340&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=ZGpI8%2BzIA9OMFm3pSCc2DQ4F5ZxtDSAXtjdFjD%2BY3NA%3D&reserved=0 ## Example patch series with < 10 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00289.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=JyaUyvYfZD7b%2F2wN%2BpS%2B68b%2BwyKoZ3Rba4ol%2FyahQVU%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00030.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=bQHIJIQq4Pri8iK3vPxMDMWz%2BKtXcyuPdhr8y7gFpXA%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00018.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=uMIRGOq%2BVCOSwDzXkG4yueYS4ZJ7BWfsp3Z4%2B9lh6hE%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00008.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=3CBkdqDxRt4IxtECpWQdKJL%2Bf4HFqqHCXo4loxNTzAE%3D&reserved=0 ## Example patch series with > 80 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00198.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=fDfQnifOMzyzLMdP4xH8koKCiSj7ZiuYyrrSZXTf3d4%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00116.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=lcxA3tTna%2BdmTpcNMmPlS%2B47llMAcIEjhCEqxV7TDOc%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00035.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=CgvZ8e%2B7L4nacvRE35KqEyC%2F1CjDYP6wI10qn%2BoX39Y%3D&reserved=0 # Tasks to Complete * Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of new code review process. * Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2-codereview repository * Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to be compatible with GitHub IDs at the end of M: and R: statements * Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests and emails * Determine if webhook requests must be serialized? Current POC is serialized. * Make sure webhook has error handling for all unexpected events/states. * Add logging of all events and emails to webhook The logging sounds very useful, thank you. Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the message-id of that email, if possible. * Add admin interface to webhook * Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7 support # Ideas for Future Enhancements * Run PatchCheck.py before assigning maintainers/reviewers. * Add a simple check that fails if a single patch spans more than one package. Hmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this rule. * Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Reviewed-by, Series-Acked-by, Series-Tested-by made by assigned maintainers/reviewers. Once all commits have required tags, auto update commit messages in the branch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push` label to run CI and auto merge if all CI checks pass. Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)! Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...> #291 I feel like this process is a good compromise. It’s not perfect (frankly, I’m a fan of enforced squash merges, which can maintain bisectability if managed well), but it allows for rapid iteration, ease of contribution, and approaches the workflow that many who have never used email to maintain a project would be familiar with. It’s code management for the Instagram generation, and I for one welcome our new insect overlords. - Bret From: Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:43 PM To: Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@...<mailto:lersek@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process Hi Bret, This is a good point. What I am proposing is the first version of the patch series submitted as a pull request. Let the community do a complete review of the content. The submitter can add patches to the end of the pull request addressing feedback and can even add patches that make changes to previous patches until all feedback/conversations are resolved. This keeps the conversations complete and the conversations will also be archived to the email archive. At this point, the developer can reformulate the patch series and do forced push of V2. Reviewers can review the cleaned up patch series and repeat the process if there is more feedback, or move to final approval. By doing all the work on a single pull request, we minimize the total number of pull requests in the repo. An alternative approach would be to open a new pull request for each new version of the series. This would preserve the GitHub conversations for each version of the pull request. All the earlier ones would be closed/abandoned, and only the final one would be closed/merged. Best regards, Mike From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:10 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@...; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process As a counterpoint: if we force a new branch or force push on every tweak, we lose the “thread” of discussion on what caused the change, what changed as a result, and the easy hook for the original change requester to reply directly to the change as is. - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek via groups.io<mailto:lersek@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:39 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process On 05/09/20 04:59, Michael D Kinney wrote: Hello, This is a proposal to change from the current email-based code review process to a GitHub pull request-based code review process for all repositories maintained in TianoCore. The current email-based code review process and commit message requirements are documented in Readme.md or Readme.rst at the root of repositories along with a few Wiki pages: * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FReadMe.rst&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=lVjWRLsBC3xJpyRFeDrGjFhMOzAgi2V3vsAPxj7lIDw%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FReadMe.rst&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951667090&sdata=S%2Fu9iHwOFHKtYL7jeqIVGZLwDRbG%2F8%2BUm6qQxtLpwH0%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development-Process&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=sgAhQxCpyjmzC%2FW%2BFiLLwaF2M8wscBz3k93ne25qUXs%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development-Process&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951667090&sdata=l4uZzb0JliBkFXCQ7YfNBXs3Aoky0RYQn5gVT34AlH4%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=eHP9fcPMw6yjqTU%2B%2BUZ3FZkq8jZeM1LTU6dGTzmFp4Q%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951677089&sdata=Wo2qJFt7cHi5zZS96kCml7MZI%2B32v%2FiRqPdICvpTw5c%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message-Format&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=uq8G6nGyLpa7m%2F0fD2pwrcM9uixbKs6SLTge8e77M%2FY%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message-Format&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951677089&sdata=RjfxykjBSMEU%2BqsYkAmDPl%2FIgvBTPx%2BCvSIOPexpcc8%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature-Format&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Mz8dUn2L8dFwJdlo4LbaIKt2JrWE%2Fn4tBtVWenK%2F8Ck%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature-Format&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951687191&sdata=jPadwqi8wSOKaVOKU3o2JOegzvTqdz8o7bSLyT%2B0El8%3D&reserved=0> The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pull request and perform all code review activity using the GitHub web interface. This proposal does not change any licenses or commit message requirements. It does require all developers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHub accounts. One requirement that was collected from previous discussions on this topic is the need for an email archive of all patches and code review activities. The existing GitHub features to produce an email archive were deemed insufficient. A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has been implemented to provide the email archive service. This email archive is read-only. You will not be able to send emails to this archive or reply to emails in the archive. The sections below provide more details on the proposed GitHub pull request based code review process, details on the email archive service, and a set of remaining tasks make the email archive service production quality. It does not make sense to support both the existing email-based code review and the GitHub pull request-based code review at the same time. Instead, this proposal is to switch to the GitHub pull request-based code review and retire the email based code review process on the same date. The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requests today to run automated CI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainer to set the `push` label to request the changes to be merged if all CI checks pass. With this proposal, once the code review is complete and the commit messages have been updated, the same pull request can be used to perform a final set of CI checks and merge the changes into the master branch. I would like to collect feedback on this proposal and the email archive service over the next two weeks with close of comments on Friday May 22, 2020. If all issues and concerns can be addressed, then I would like to see the community agree to make this change as soon as all remaining tasks are completed. # TianoCore Repositories to enable * [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951697080&sdata=YhFQ9Fxt8Y0kFdOTgY2v9vML9uCOpS9j5cKJj%2FPCToc%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2-platforms](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-platforms&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=g8mgGL6B%2FRsvm3935OpZMctOTKUoeHGi8jPuCVKQjbI%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-platforms&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951697080&sdata=dG8NsNTDjSX05wQWXargPnJydEGQyvZCia%2BSOIUyG6o%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2-non-osi](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non-osi&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=9lrEsZWOpc3wqylKs7yF%2FzxYwZsUUamP3oUrWDWcHCc%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non-osi&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951707067&sdata=Mkz1CUW26UJ2X6wIEgO0UGz0ZJqWhkXMFwc5v5420tU%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2-test](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-test&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=8v205MD3HTYg3yLmGJS3SIDA5um9sVJfOa5CXViZjyU%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-test&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951707067&sdata=fzDqTRet6MgfwmVIq8mb5%2BgB3rAiVteCQklombfBMaU%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2-libc](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-libc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Tzt293HJzFnGSkh1mUBew8dAsaZ4axWq2ml8UhQ%2FSTI%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-libc&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951717077&sdata=wpaAwogDjzDwRzpoB5vInxeqtMkNoawyPFg1j3m9omw%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2-staging](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-staging&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=bcNbt7Y7KoBrcnW4fAc4jbGgJL%2B4lYUkVLhYNo37OiM%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-staging&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951717077&sdata=5ehzG40XuHbF56QwzFHyY8krO1NwGDWnFVMZdZ9OUvM%3D&reserved=0>) # GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process NOTE: All steps below use [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951727054&sdata=IrlV0ptekGi4Sz%2FxBYhIa5LiRuI3jlKE9JzgwbKGP6o%3D&reserved=0>) as an example. Several repositories are supported. ## Author/Developer Steps * Create a personal fork of [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951727054&sdata=IrlV0ptekGi4Sz%2FxBYhIa5LiRuI3jlKE9JzgwbKGP6o%3D&reserved=0>) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetting-started-with-github%2Ffork-a-repo&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=umI3eqOh03qmt9YlPo33ujypu90YwImAvuxh5SlrM%2Bw%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetting-started-with-github%2Ffork-a-repo&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951737053&sdata=pC%2F9W90ZNlmGQFNy97ee1xQMJ93XC%2Bdo5lmIdZhnRk0%3D&reserved=0> * Create a new branch from edk2/master in personal fork of edk2 repository. * Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix to new branch. Make sure to follow the commit message format requirements. The only change with this RFC is that the Cc: lines to maintainers/reviewers should not be added. The Cc: lines are still supported, but they should only be used to add reviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are not members of TianoCore. * Push branch with new commits to personal fork * Create a pull request against TianoCore edk2/master https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcreating-a-pull-request&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=2GVrQy0FGwd4CCeGveh99HL3zS1ekRfAAaKhhRiOMpU%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcreating-a-pull-request&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951737053&sdata=sZjbyeRye35une4C2y5RQ83ah%2B01o4XhFNXsvIXT1l0%3D&reserved=0> * If pull request has more than 1 commit, then fill in the pull request title and decryption information for Patch #0. Do not leave defaults. s/decryption/description/ (Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.) * Do not assign reviewers. The webhook assigns maintainers and reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. * If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback that requires changes, then make add commits to the current branch with the requested changes. Once all s/make add/add/ changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series and commit comments as needed for perform a forced push to the branch in the personal fork of the edk2 repository. This step may be repeated if multiple versions of the patch series are required to address all code review feedback. Do I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first push incremental patches on top of the series, then do a rebase (squashing updates as necessary) and finally do a force-push, for the next round of review? To me as a reviewer, that's extra work. I'm used to locally comparing the v(n) patch set to v(n+1) with git-range-diff, and/or with some personal scripts. I wouldn't encourage incremental patches appended -- even temporarily -- to the branch, because (a) it's extra review work (it requires me to review something that has zero chance to get into the git history as-is), and (b) it superficially resembles the github.com-specific bad practice called "squash on merge", and (c) it runs the risk that the maintainer responsible for ultimately merging the series ends up actually merging the incremental (= "fixup") patches in isolation (without squashing them). OPEN: How should minimum review period be set? Labels? Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require reviewers to start providing their feedback within one week. One thing that I find important is that a maintainer can signal "I got your work in my queue, but I may need more time". And a special case of that are automated out-of-office responses. I think they are very helpful (when a contributor feels they are bottlenecked on review), but I'm not sure how one can configure that via github. I certainly would not share my out-of-office times with github. (I set the start/end dates in my email infrastructure, at the moment, but the out-of-office messages it sends do not contain the dates either, on purpose.) ## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Steps * Receive an event that a new pull request was opened * Evaluate the files modified by the entire pull request and each commit in the pull request and cross references against `Maintainters.txt` in the root s/cross references/cross reference them/ ? of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. Individual commit assignments are performed by adding a commit comment of the following form: [CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney * Generate and sends git patch review emails to the email archive. Emails s/sends/send/ are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages. * If the author/developer performs a forced push to the branch in their personal fork of the edk2 repository, then a new set of patch review emails with patch series Vx is sent to the email archive and any Cc: tags in commit messages. * Receive events associated with all code review activities and generate and send emails to the email archive that shows all review comments and all responses closely matching the email contents seen in the current email based code review process. * Generate and send email when pull request is merged or closed. ## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps * Make sure GitHub configuration is setup to 'Watch' the repositories that you have maintainer ship or review responsibilities and that email s/maintainer ship/maintainership/ notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notifications when a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a pull request and individual commits. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fmanaging-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github%2Fconfiguring-notifications&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=OlkiyymcQi39P8%2FOJZG4yjh4h%2FHerkHBe5bCSQQFLOU%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fmanaging-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github%2Fconfiguring-notifications&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951747044&sdata=FJwHjpFL7UFtZ9N12pSvQSXci3IqCJJVJXI9dDzlHHU%3D&reserved=0> * Subscribe to the email archive associated with the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951747044&sdata=zbDuJd9lW3KoiuzGo6%2BU14Mnude7lZnbCeXQHJnR%2BCg%3D&reserved=0> Important: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list, for now. Once we're ready to switch over, I'll file an internal ticket at RH to either rename the list, or (which is probably better) to create a new list (no "-poc" suffix). The second option seems more useful because then the webhook development / bugfixing (if any) could perhaps occur in parallel to the normal edk2 workflow. * Review pull requests and commits assigned by the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service and use the GitHub web UI to provide all review feedback. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Freviewing-changes-in-pull-requests&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=51Ljm3wUbBTWT8hcaBD1ZQznSROvAQqnoTzQmD6K%2FLY%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Freviewing-changes-in-pull-requests&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951757040&sdata=Iav2d2fP2vw9mS9uA76tN3uQcIbl52D6BT963cD7ZC4%3D&reserved=0> * Wait for Author/Developer to respond to all feedback and add commits with code changes as needed to resolve all feedback. This step may be repeated if the developer/author need to produce multiple versions of the patch series to address all feedback. (same question about the incremental fixup patches as above) * Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Tested-by responses on individual commits. Or add Series-reviewed-by, Series-acked-by, or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire pull request. * Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commit messages in the pull request. * Perform final review of patches and commit message tags. If there are not issues, set the `push` label to run final set of CI checks and auto merge the pull request into master. # Maintainers.txt Format Changes Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers at the end of M: and R: lines in []. For example: M: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@...<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>> [mdkinney] # TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull request based on assignments documented in Maintainers.txt and generates an email archive of all pull request and code review activities. s/generates/generate/ (or s/Assign/Assigns/) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email-archive-webhook&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=7CJNJMEXrxoynjavmEwjzUyRbfNUIZ3FEG4kDRXvhI4%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email-archive-webhook&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951757040&sdata=FihVwcwfqewohsmqUECWG36TR1iCQVhVHq02iMZkEL8%3D&reserved=0> # Email Archive Subscription Service The emails are being delivered to the following RedHat email subscription service. Please subscribe to receive the emails and to be able to view the email archives. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951767033&sdata=482jeizloSfEobAk0F8%2BvP9FZptdF6oC90A%2BYSQZcds%3D&reserved=0> The email archives are at this link: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2Findex.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=nedUfkmMmI5T6GtAxQCW4q6xt38%2FezeDYmfq6cpRD0M%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2Findex.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951767033&sdata=78HRihY2z%2Fll0qoC05RMh8I%2Bwri9rwIwblxNBYFPecw%3D&reserved=0> The following sections show some example pull requests and code reviews to help review the generated emails, their contents, and threading. ## Email Achieve Thread View https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300289&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=GtrEudehfXiSU6ZwH2zKO35CPPPVk0ctZIzhkpI6DkE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300289&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951777024&sdata=%2BU8aFUi4kPBeJdlyW%2FERNtp5Fum5gZrWkgCTI8pwz14%3D&reserved=0> ## Example patch series with 1 patch https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300340&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=ZGpI8%2BzIA9OMFm3pSCc2DQ4F5ZxtDSAXtjdFjD%2BY3NA%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthread.html%2300340&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951777024&sdata=gXn%2B9z8MIdnJyUkk2xR1mK%2FL710jUDEeNhK74EUkb9A%3D&reserved=0> ## Example patch series with < 10 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00289.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=JyaUyvYfZD7b%2F2wN%2BpS%2B68b%2BwyKoZ3Rba4ol%2FyahQVU%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00289.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951787022&sdata=yvE8%2F%2FKOJUj%2BD4ZmtT3fZPAb2KBsGcAqxt%2FKwRKa6hA%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00030.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=bQHIJIQq4Pri8iK3vPxMDMWz%2BKtXcyuPdhr8y7gFpXA%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00030.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951787022&sdata=zz5BgISidxyQVI%2BQihn%2Fq%2Fv9%2B5%2Fn2vpaeyvFbIiAigs%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00018.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=uMIRGOq%2BVCOSwDzXkG4yueYS4ZJ7BWfsp3Z4%2B9lh6hE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00018.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951797016&sdata=yN0WkrPdk1EEvyPwlqCG%2B6HTOpa3iT85w2QhXQJ2xYE%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00008.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=3CBkdqDxRt4IxtECpWQdKJL%2Bf4HFqqHCXo4loxNTzAE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00008.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951797016&sdata=qF2vw8XdQfY0ECclzhbpd60vIgTj2Bzl5RjC%2F4EdbA8%3D&reserved=0> ## Example patch series with > 80 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00198.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=fDfQnifOMzyzLMdP4xH8koKCiSj7ZiuYyrrSZXTf3d4%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00198.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951807013&sdata=uXAPx9iTDbQbiv40j3EiqIP51nlFLQ43ghvAsjt4dhs%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00116.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=lcxA3tTna%2BdmTpcNMmPlS%2B47llMAcIEjhCEqxV7TDOc%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00116.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951807013&sdata=4ANIbH2YDPjN7H4gHGtbgNkAbM9EeVFOf%2FoWqTiXtiA%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00035.html&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=CgvZ8e%2B7L4nacvRE35KqEyC%2F1CjDYP6wI10qn%2BoX39Y%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00035.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951817004&sdata=1jX%2FuPSMlRvzN9eZcv5U7k4JmwfJJwaVhDJ%2BrA6mPYc%3D&reserved=0> # Tasks to Complete * Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of new code review process. * Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2-codereview repository * Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to be compatible with GitHub IDs at the end of M: and R: statements * Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests and emails * Determine if webhook requests must be serialized? Current POC is serialized. * Make sure webhook has error handling for all unexpected events/states. * Add logging of all events and emails to webhook The logging sounds very useful, thank you. Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the message-id of that email, if possible. * Add admin interface to webhook * Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7 support # Ideas for Future Enhancements * Run PatchCheck.py before assigning maintainers/reviewers. * Add a simple check that fails if a single patch spans more than one package. Hmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this rule. * Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Reviewed-by, Series-Acked-by, Series-Tested-by made by assigned maintainers/reviewers. Once all commits have required tags, auto update commit messages in the branch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push` label to run CI and auto merge if all CI checks pass. Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)! Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Michael D Kinney #292 Bret, If the original submission is a single patch, and the code review generates changes that are added as additional patches for review, but the intent in the end is still a single patch, then squashing them all at the end is correct. Using the GitHub feature to squash them is a challenge because of the EDK II commit message requirements. In order to make sure the final commit message for the one commit is correct, the developer should squash and edit the commit message. There may be opportunities to automate these operations, but the developer still needs to do the final review and have the ability to do further edits of the commit message. Mike toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bret Barkelew via groups.io Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:27 PM To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@...; rfc@edk2.groups.io Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process I feel like this process is a good compromise. It’s not perfect (frankly, I’m a fan of enforced squash merges, which can maintain bisectability if managed well), but it allows for rapid iteration, ease of contribution, and approaches the workflow that many who have never used email to maintain a project would be familiar with. It’s code management for the Instagram generation, and I for one welcome our new insect overlords. - Bret From: Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:43 PM To: Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@...<mailto:lersek@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process Hi Bret, This is a good point. What I am proposing is the first version of the patch series submitted as a pull request. Let the community do a complete review of the content. The submitter can add patches to the end of the pull request addressing feedback and can even add patches that make changes to previous patches until all feedback/conversations are resolved. This keeps the conversations complete and the conversations will also be archived to the email archive. At this point, the developer can reformulate the patch series and do forced push of V2. Reviewers can review the cleaned up patch series and repeat the process if there is more feedback, or move to final approval. By doing all the work on a single pull request, we minimize the total number of pull requests in the repo. An alternative approach would be to open a new pull request for each new version of the series. This would preserve the GitHub conversations for each version of the pull request. All the earlier ones would be closed/abandoned, and only the final one would be closed/merged. Best regards, Mike From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:10 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@...; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process As a counterpoint: if we force a new branch or force push on every tweak, we lose the “thread” of discussion on what caused the change, what changed as a result, and the easy hook for the original change requester to reply directly to the change as is. - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek via groups.io<mailto:lersek@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:39 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process On 05/09/20 04:59, Michael D Kinney wrote: Hello, This is a proposal to change from the current email- based code review process to a GitHub pull request-based code review process for all repositories maintained in TianoCore. The current email-based code review process and commit message requirements are documented in Readme.md or Readme.rst at the root of repositories along with a few Wiki pages: * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fblob%2Fmaste r%2FReadMe.rst&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40micro soft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf8 6f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&am p;sdata=lVjWRLsBC3xJpyRFeDrGjFhMOzAgi2V3vsAPxj7lIDw%3D& amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlo ok.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2 %2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FReadMe.rst&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barke lew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b% 7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482659 51667090&sdata=S%2Fu9iHwOFHKtYL7jeqIVGZLwDRbG%2F8%2BUm6 qQxtLpwH0%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io %2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development- Process&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata =sgAhQxCpyjmzC%2FW%2BFiLLwaF2M8wscBz3k93ne25qUXs%3D&amp ;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook. com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianoco re.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development- Process&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C b61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951667090&sdata=l4uZzb0 JliBkFXCQ7YfNBXs3Aoky0RYQn5gVT34AlH4%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io %2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2- contributors-and- maintainers&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsof t.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f1 41af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&s data=eHP9fcPMw6yjqTU%2B%2BUZ3FZkq8jZeM1LTU6dGTzmFp4Q%3D &reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outl ook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftia nocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide- for-edk2-contributors-and- maintainers&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951677089&sdata=Wo2 qJFt7cHi5zZS96kCml7MZI%2B32v%2FiRqPdICvpTw5c%3D&reserve d=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io %2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message- Format&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com %7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af9 1ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata= uq8G6nGyLpa7m%2F0fD2pwrcM9uixbKs6SLTge8e77M%2FY%3D& reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.c om/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocor e.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message- Format&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb 61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951677089&sdata=RjfxykjB SMEU%2BqsYkAmDPl%2FIgvBTPx%2BCvSIOPexpcc8%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io %2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature- Format&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com %7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af9 1ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata= Mz8dUn2L8dFwJdlo4LbaIKt2JrWE%2Fn4tBtVWenK%2F8Ck%3D& reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.c om/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocor e.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature- Format&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb 61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951687191&sdata=jPadwqi8 wSOKaVOKU3o2JOegzvTqdz8o7bSLyT%2B0El8%3D&reserved=0> The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pull request and perform all code review activity using the GitHub web interface. This proposal does not change any licenses or commit message requirements. It does require all developers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHub accounts. One requirement that was collected from previous discussions on this topic is the need for an email archive of all patches and code review activities. The existing GitHub features to produce an email archive were deemed insufficient. A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has been implemented to provide the email archive service. This email archive is read-only. You will not be able to send emails to this archive or reply to emails in the archive. The sections below provide more details on the proposed GitHub pull request based code review process, details on the email archive service, and a set of remaining tasks make the email archive service production quality. It does not make sense to support both the existing email-based code review and the GitHub pull request-based code review at the same time. Instead, this proposal is to switch to the GitHub pull request-based code review and retire the email based code review process on the same date. The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requests today to run automated CI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainer to set the `push` label to request the changes to be merged if all CI checks pass. With this proposal, once the code review is complete and the commit messages have been updated, the same pull request can be used to perform a final set of CI checks and merge the changes into the master branch. I would like to collect feedback on this proposal and the email archive service over the next two weeks with close of comments on Friday May 22, 2020. If all issues and concerns can be addressed, then I would like to see the community agree to make this change as soon as all remaining tasks are completed. # TianoCore Repositories to enable * [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&dat a=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b 544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4 7%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5 Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0<https:/ /nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=02%7C01%7CBret.B arkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebe b5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248 265951697080&sdata=YhFQ9Fxt8Y0kFdOTgY2v9vML9uCOpS9j5cKJ j%2FPCToc%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2- platforms](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.c om/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- platforms&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft. com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141 af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sda ta=g8mgGL6B%2FRsvm3935OpZMctOTKUoeHGi8jPuCVKQjbI%3D&amp ;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook. com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- platforms&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com% 7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91 ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951697080&sdata=dG8Ns NTDjSX05wQWXargPnJydEGQyvZCia%2BSOIUyG6o%3D&reserved=0> ) * [edk2-non- osi](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?ur l=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non- osi&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C 1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=9lr EsZWOpc3wqylKs7yF%2FzxYwZsUUamP3oUrWDWcHCc%3D&reser ved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non- osi&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61c e42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c d011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951707067&sdata=Mkz1CUW26UJ 2X6wIEgO0UGz0ZJqWhkXMFwc5v5420tU%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2- test](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- test&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7 C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=8v 205MD3HTYg3yLmGJS3SIDA5um9sVJfOa5CXViZjyU%3D&reserv ed=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?ur l=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- test&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61 ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951707067&sdata=fzDqTRet6M gfwmVIq8mb5%2BgB3rAiVteCQklombfBMaU%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2- libc](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- libc&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7 C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Tz t293HJzFnGSkh1mUBew8dAsaZ4axWq2ml8UhQ%2FSTI%3D&rese rved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- libc&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61 ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951717077&sdata=wpaAwogDjz DwRzpoB5vInxeqtMkNoawyPFg1j3m9omw%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2- staging](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com /?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- staging&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata =bcNbt7Y7KoBrcnW4fAc4jbGgJL%2B4lYUkVLhYNo37OiM%3D&r eserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.co m/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- staging&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C b61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951717077&sdata=5ehzG40 XuHbF56QwzFHyY8krO1NwGDWnFVMZdZ9OUvM%3D&reserved=0>) # GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process NOTE: All steps below use [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&dat a=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b 544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4 7%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5 Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0<https:/ /nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=02%7C01%7CBret.B arkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebe b5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248 265951727054&sdata=IrlV0ptekGi4Sz%2FxBYhIa5LiRuI3jlKE9J zgwbKGP6o%3D&reserved=0>) as an example. Several repositories are supported. ## Author/Developer Steps * Create a personal fork of [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&dat a=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b 544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4 7%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5 Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0<https:/ /nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=02%7C01%7CBret.B arkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebe b5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248 265951727054&sdata=IrlV0ptekGi4Sz%2FxBYhIa5LiRuI3jlKE9J zgwbKGP6o%3D&reserved=0>) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetting- started-with-github%2Ffork-a- repo&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7 C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=um I3eqOh03qmt9YlPo33ujypu90YwImAvuxh5SlrM%2Bw%3D&rese rved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetti ng-started-with-github%2Ffork-a- repo&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61 ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951737053&sdata=pC%2F9W90Z NlmGQFNy97ee1xQMJ93XC%2Bdo5lmIdZhnRk0%3D&reserved=0> * Create a new branch from edk2/master in personal fork of edk2 repository. * Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix to new branch. Make sure to follow the commit message format requirements. The only change with this RFC is that the Cc: lines to maintainers/reviewers should not be added. The Cc: lines are still supported, but they should only be used to add reviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are not members of TianoCore. * Push branch with new commits to personal fork * Create a pull request against TianoCore edk2/master https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaboratin g-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcreating-a-pull- request&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata =2GVrQy0FGwd4CCeGveh99HL3zS1ekRfAAaKhhRiOMpU%3D&res erved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/ ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcoll aborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcreating-a- pull- request&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C b61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951737053&sdata=sZjbyeR ye35une4C2y5RQ83ah%2B01o4XhFNXsvIXT1l0%3D&reserved=0> * If pull request has more than 1 commit, then fill in the pull request title and decryption information for Patch #0. Do not leave defaults. s/decryption/description/ (Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.) * Do not assign reviewers. The webhook assigns maintainers and reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. * If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback that requires changes, then make add commits to the current branch with the requested changes. Once all s/make add/add/ changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series and commit comments as needed for perform a forced push to the branch in the personal fork of the edk2 repository. This step may be repeated if multiple versions of the patch series are required to address all code review feedback. Do I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first push incremental patches on top of the series, then do a rebase (squashing updates as necessary) and finally do a force-push, for the next round of review? To me as a reviewer, that's extra work. I'm used to locally comparing the v(n) patch set to v(n+1) with git-range-diff, and/or with some personal scripts. I wouldn't encourage incremental patches appended -- even temporarily -- to the branch, because (a) it's extra review work (it requires me to review something that has zero chance to get into the git history as-is), and (b) it superficially resembles the github.com-specific bad practice called "squash on merge", and (c) it runs the risk that the maintainer responsible for ultimately merging the series ends up actually merging the incremental (= "fixup") patches in isolation (without squashing them). OPEN: How should minimum review period be set? Labels? Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require reviewers to start providing their feedback within one week. One thing that I find important is that a maintainer can signal "I got your work in my queue, but I may need more time". And a special case of that are automated out-of-office responses. I think they are very helpful (when a contributor feels they are bottlenecked on review), but I'm not sure how one can configure that via github. I certainly would not share my out-of-office times with github. (I set the start/end dates in my email infrastructure, at the moment, but the out- of-office messages it sends do not contain the dates either, on purpose.) ## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Steps * Receive an event that a new pull request was opened * Evaluate the files modified by the entire pull request and each commit in the pull request and cross references against `Maintainters.txt` in the root s/cross references/cross reference them/ ? of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. Individual commit assignments are performed by adding a commit comment of the following form: [CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney * Generate and sends git patch review emails to the email archive. Emails s/sends/send/ are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages. * If the author/developer performs a forced push to the branch in their personal fork of the edk2 repository, then a new set of patch review emails with patch series Vx is sent to the email archive and any Cc: tags in commit messages. * Receive events associated with all code review activities and generate and send emails to the email archive that shows all review comments and all responses closely matching the email contents seen in the current email based code review process. * Generate and send email when pull request is merged or closed. ## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps * Make sure GitHub configuration is setup to 'Watch' the repositories that you have maintainer ship or review responsibilities and that email s/maintainer ship/maintainership/ notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notifications when a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a pull request and individual commits. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fmanaging- subscriptions-and-notifications-on- github%2Fconfiguring- notifications&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40micros oft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86 f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&amp ;sdata=OlkiyymcQi39P8%2FOJZG4yjh4h%2FHerkHBe5bCSQQFLOU% 3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.ou tlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgit hub%2Fmanaging-subscriptions-and-notifications-on- github%2Fconfiguring- notifications&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft. com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141 af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951747044&sdata=F JwHjpFL7UFtZ9N12pSvQSXci3IqCJJVJXI9dDzlHHU%3D&reserved= 0> * Subscribe to the email archive associated with the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianoc ore-code-review- poc&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C 1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0I uvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserve d=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fti anocore-code-review- poc&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61c e42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c d011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951747044&sdata=zbDuJd9lW3K oiuzGo6%2BU14Mnude7lZnbCeXQHJnR%2BCg%3D&reserved=0> Important: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list, for now. Once we're ready to switch over, I'll file an internal ticket at RH to either rename the list, or (which is probably better) to create a new list (no "-poc" suffix). The second option seems more useful because then the webhook development / bugfixing (if any) could perhaps occur in parallel to the normal edk2 workflow. * Review pull requests and commits assigned by the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service and use the GitHub web UI to provide all review feedback. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaboratin g-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Freviewing-changes-in- pull- requests&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.c om%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141a f91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdat a=51Ljm3wUbBTWT8hcaBD1ZQznSROvAQqnoTzQmD6K%2FLY%3D& reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.c om/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fc ollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Freviewing- changes-in-pull- requests&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7 Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951757040&sdata=Iav2d2 fP2vw9mS9uA76tN3uQcIbl52D6BT963cD7ZC4%3D&reserved=0> * Wait for Author/Developer to respond to all feedback and add commits with code changes as needed to resolve all feedback. This step may be repeated if the developer/author need to produce multiple versions of the patch series to address all feedback. (same question about the incremental fixup patches as above) * Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Tested-by responses on individual commits. Or add Series- reviewed-by, Series-acked-by, or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire pull request. * Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commit messages in the pull request. * Perform final review of patches and commit message tags. If there are not issues, set the `push` label to run final set of CI checks and auto merge the pull request into master. # Maintainers.txt Format Changes Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers at the end of M: and R: lines in []. For example: M: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@...<mailto:michael.d.kinney@int el.com>> [mdkinney] # TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull request based on assignments documented in Maintainers.txt and generates an email archive of all pull request and code review activities. s/generates/generate/ (or s/Assign/Assigns/) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email-archive- webhook&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata =7CJNJMEXrxoynjavmEwjzUyRbfNUIZ3FEG4kDRXvhI4%3D&res erved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/ ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email- archive- webhook&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C b61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951757040&sdata=FihVwcw fqewohsmqUECWG36TR1iCQVhVHq02iMZkEL8%3D&reserved=0> # Email Archive Subscription Service The emails are being delivered to the following RedHat email subscription service. Please subscribe to receive the emails and to be able to view the email archives. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianoc ore-code-review- poc&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C 1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0I uvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserve d=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fti anocore-code-review- poc&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61c e42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c d011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951767033&sdata=482jeizloSf EobAk0F8%2BvP9FZptdF6oC90A%2BYSQZcds%3D&reserved=0> The email archives are at this link: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review- poc%2Findex.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40mic rosoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988b f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640& amp;sdata=nedUfkmMmI5T6GtAxQCW4q6xt38%2FezeDYmfq6cpRD0M %3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.o utlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman% 2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review- poc%2Findex.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microso ft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f 141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951767033&sdat a=78HRihY2z%2Fll0qoC05RMh8I%2Bwri9rwIwblxNBYFPecw%3D&re served=0> The following sections show some example pull requests and code reviews to help review the generated emails, their contents, and threading. ## Email Achieve Thread View https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fthread.html%2300289&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barke lew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56% 7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275 86678640&sdata=GtrEudehfXiSU6ZwH2zKO35CPPPVk0ctZIzh kpI6DkE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.prote ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fm ailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fthread.html%2300289&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew% 40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72 f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63724826595177 7024&sdata=%2BU8aFUi4kPBeJdlyW%2FERNtp5Fum5gZrWkgCTI8pw z14%3D&reserved=0> ## Example patch series with 1 patch https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fthread.html%2300340&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barke lew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56% 7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275 86678640&sdata=ZGpI8%2BzIA9OMFm3pSCc2DQ4F5ZxtDSAXtj dFjD%2BY3NA%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.p rotection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com %2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review- poc%2F2020- May%2Fthread.html%2300340&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew% 40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72 f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63724826595177 7024&sdata=gXn%2B9z8MIdnJyUkk2xR1mK%2FL710jUDEeNhK74EUk b9A%3D&reserved=0> ## Example patch series with < 10 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00289.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=JyaUyvYfZD7b%2F2wN%2BpS%2B68b%2BwyKoZ3Rba4 ol%2FyahQVU%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.p rotection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com %2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review- poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00289.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951787022&s data=yvE8%2F%2FKOJUj%2BD4ZmtT3fZPAb2KBsGcAqxt%2FKwRKa6h A%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00030.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=bQHIJIQq4Pri8iK3vPxMDMWz%2BKtXcyuPdhr8y7gF pXA%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protectio n.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailm an%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00030.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951787022&s data=zz5BgISidxyQVI%2BQihn%2Fq%2Fv9%2B5%2Fn2vpaeyvFbIiA igs%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00018.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=uMIRGOq%2BVCOSwDzXkG4yueYS4ZJ7BWfsp3Z4%2B9 lh6hE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protect ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmai lman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00018.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951797016&s data=yN0WkrPdk1EEvyPwlqCG%2B6HTOpa3iT85w2QhXQJ2xYE%3D&r eserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00008.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=3CBkdqDxRt4IxtECpWQdKJL%2Bf4HFqqHCXo4loxNT zAE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protectio n.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailm an%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00008.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951797016&s data=qF2vw8XdQfY0ECclzhbpd60vIgTj2Bzl5RjC%2F4EdbA8%3D&r eserved=0> ## Example patch series with > 80 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00198.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=fDfQnifOMzyzLMdP4xH8koKCiSj7ZiuYyrrSZXTf3d 4%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection. outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman %2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00198.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951807013&s data=uXAPx9iTDbQbiv40j3EiqIP51nlFLQ43ghvAsjt4dhs%3D&res erved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00116.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=lcxA3tTna%2BdmTpcNMmPlS%2B47llMAcIEjhCEqxV 7TDOc%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protect ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmai lman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00116.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951807013&s data=4ANIbH2YDPjN7H4gHGtbgNkAbM9EeVFOf%2FoWqTiXtiA%3D&r eserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00035.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=CgvZ8e%2B7L4nacvRE35KqEyC%2F1CjDYP6wI10qn% 2BoX39Y%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.prote ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fm ailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00035.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951817004&s data=1jX%2FuPSMlRvzN9eZcv5U7k4JmwfJJwaVhDJ%2BrA6mPYc%3D &reserved=0> # Tasks to Complete * Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of new code review process. * Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2- codereview repository * Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to be compatible with GitHub IDs at the end of M: and R: statements * Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests and emails * Determine if webhook requests must be serialized? Current POC is serialized. * Make sure webhook has error handling for all unexpected events/states. * Add logging of all events and emails to webhook The logging sounds very useful, thank you. Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the message-id of that email, if possible. * Add admin interface to webhook * Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7 support # Ideas for Future Enhancements * Run PatchCheck.py before assigning maintainers/reviewers. * Add a simple check that fails if a single patch spans more than one package. Hmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this rule. * Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested- by, Series-Reviewed-by, Series-Acked-by, Series-Tested-by made by assigned maintainers/reviewers. Once all commits have required tags, auto update commit messages in the branch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push` label to run CI and auto merge if all CI checks pass. Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)! Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...> #293 Agreed. Responsibility to verify the commit message when squashing is always something to be aware of. With Github, the one who presses the “Close and Merge” (or whatever it’s called) button has the final say on the title and message. We can play with approaches to how the squash merge would work. I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to allow for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would pursue with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9 PRs for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one. Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and a half or so, rather than the multiple months that we’re now verging on. - Bret From: Michael D Kinney via groups.io<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 6:19 PM To: rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@...<mailto:lersek@...>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process Bret, If the original submission is a single patch, and the code review generates changes that are added as additional patches for review, but the intent in the end is still a single patch, then squashing them all at the end is correct. Using the GitHub feature to squash them is a challenge because of the EDK II commit message requirements. In order to make sure the final commit message for the one commit is correct, the developer should squash and edit the commit message. There may be opportunities to automate these operations, but the developer still needs to do the final review and have the ability to do further edits of the commit message. Mike -----Original Message----- From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bret Barkelew via groups.io Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:27 PM To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@...; rfc@edk2.groups.io Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process I feel like this process is a good compromise. It’s not perfect (frankly, I’m a fan of enforced squash merges, which can maintain bisectability if managed well), but it allows for rapid iteration, ease of contribution, and approaches the workflow that many who have never used email to maintain a project would be familiar with. It’s code management for the Instagram generation, and I for one welcome our new insect overlords. - Bret From: Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:43 PM To: Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@...<mailto:lersek@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process Hi Bret, This is a good point. What I am proposing is the first version of the patch series submitted as a pull request. Let the community do a complete review of the content. The submitter can add patches to the end of the pull request addressing feedback and can even add patches that make changes to previous patches until all feedback/conversations are resolved. This keeps the conversations complete and the conversations will also be archived to the email archive. At this point, the developer can reformulate the patch series and do forced push of V2. Reviewers can review the cleaned up patch series and repeat the process if there is more feedback, or move to final approval. By doing all the work on a single pull request, we minimize the total number of pull requests in the repo. An alternative approach would be to open a new pull request for each new version of the series. This would preserve the GitHub conversations for each version of the pull request. All the earlier ones would be closed/abandoned, and only the final one would be closed/merged. Best regards, Mike From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:10 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@...; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process As a counterpoint: if we force a new branch or force push on every tweak, we lose the “thread” of discussion on what caused the change, what changed as a result, and the easy hook for the original change requester to reply directly to the change as is. - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek via groups.io<mailto:lersek@...> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:39 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process On 05/09/20 04:59, Michael D Kinney wrote: Hello, This is a proposal to change from the current email- based code review process to a GitHub pull request-based code review process for all repositories maintained in TianoCore. The current email-based code review process and commit message requirements are documented in Readme.md or Readme.rst at the root of repositories along with a few Wiki pages: * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fblob%2Fmaste r%2FReadMe.rst&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40micro soft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf8 6f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&am p;sdata=lVjWRLsBC3xJpyRFeDrGjFhMOzAgi2V3vsAPxj7lIDw%3D& amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.outlo%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611242055&sdata=Gr4Mw1Yz36xH3riEM7yicL5DIKv1%2FVuXM%2FObxAIWbJo%3D&reserved=0 ok.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2 %2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FReadMe.rst&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barke lew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b% 7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482659 51667090&sdata=S%2Fu9iHwOFHKtYL7jeqIVGZLwDRbG%2F8%2BUm6 qQxtLpwH0%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io %2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development- Process&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata =sgAhQxCpyjmzC%2FW%2BFiLLwaF2M8wscBz3k93ne25qUXs%3D&amp ;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.outlook%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=B0BrCucxkG8t6JzA0b113MLW5PocHmW54lhtOAQdR%2F4%3D&reserved=0. com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianoco re.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development- Process&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C b61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951667090&sdata=l4uZzb0 JliBkFXCQ7YfNBXs3Aoky0RYQn5gVT34AlH4%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io %2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2- contributors-and- maintainers&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsof t.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f1 41af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&s data=eHP9fcPMw6yjqTU%2B%2BUZ3FZkq8jZeM1LTU6dGTzmFp4Q%3D &reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.outl%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=%2FfG2%2BrXhM02OXgg%2Fa1G8tBYx0mHIH8lTm%2FF7bKSh10M%3D&reserved=0 ook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftia nocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide- for-edk2-contributors-and- maintainers&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951677089&sdata=Wo2 qJFt7cHi5zZS96kCml7MZI%2B32v%2FiRqPdICvpTw5c%3D&reserve d=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io %2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message- Format&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com %7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af9 1ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata= uq8G6nGyLpa7m%2F0fD2pwrcM9uixbKs6SLTge8e77M%2FY%3D& reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.c%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=%2BfY0MvXLLyf%2Bt7w2VFkWgfnEGFjgqdJo7WsZmQN8yLE%3D&reserved=0 om/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocor e.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message- Format&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb 61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951677089&sdata=RjfxykjB SMEU%2BqsYkAmDPl%2FIgvBTPx%2BCvSIOPexpcc8%3D&reserved=0 * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io %2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature- Format&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com %7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af9 1ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata= Mz8dUn2L8dFwJdlo4LbaIKt2JrWE%2Fn4tBtVWenK%2F8Ck%3D& reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.c%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=%2BfY0MvXLLyf%2Bt7w2VFkWgfnEGFjgqdJo7WsZmQN8yLE%3D&reserved=0 om/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocor e.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature- Format&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb 61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2 d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951687191&sdata=jPadwqi8 wSOKaVOKU3o2JOegzvTqdz8o7bSLyT%2B0El8%3D&reserved=0> The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pull request and perform all code review activity using the GitHub web interface. This proposal does not change any licenses or commit message requirements. It does require all developers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHub accounts. One requirement that was collected from previous discussions on this topic is the need for an email archive of all patches and code review activities. The existing GitHub features to produce an email archive were deemed insufficient. A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has been implemented to provide the email archive service. This email archive is read-only. You will not be able to send emails to this archive or reply to emails in the archive. The sections below provide more details on the proposed GitHub pull request based code review process, details on the email archive service, and a set of remaining tasks make the email archive service production quality. It does not make sense to support both the existing email-based code review and the GitHub pull request-based code review at the same time. Instead, this proposal is to switch to the GitHub pull request-based code review and retire the email based code review process on the same date. The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requests today to run automated CI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainer to set the `push` label to request the changes to be merged if all CI checks pass. With this proposal, once the code review is complete and the commit messages have been updated, the same pull request can be used to perform a final set of CI checks and merge the changes into the master branch. I would like to collect feedback on this proposal and the email archive service over the next two weeks with close of comments on Friday May 22, 2020. If all issues and concerns can be addressed, then I would like to see the community agree to make this change as soon as all remaining tasks are completed. # TianoCore Repositories to enable * [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&dat a=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b 544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4 7%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5 Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0<https:/ /nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=02%7C01%7CBret.B arkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebe b5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248 265951697080&sdata=YhFQ9Fxt8Y0kFdOTgY2v9vML9uCOpS9j5cKJ j%2FPCToc%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2- platforms](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.c%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=%2BfY0MvXLLyf%2Bt7w2VFkWgfnEGFjgqdJo7WsZmQN8yLE%3D&reserved=0 om/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- platforms&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft. com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141 af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sda ta=g8mgGL6B%2FRsvm3935OpZMctOTKUoeHGi8jPuCVKQjbI%3D&amp ;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.outlook%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=B0BrCucxkG8t6JzA0b113MLW5PocHmW54lhtOAQdR%2F4%3D&reserved=0. com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- platforms&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com% 7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91 ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951697080&sdata=dG8Ns NTDjSX05wQWXargPnJydEGQyvZCia%2BSOIUyG6o%3D&reserved=0> ) * [edk2-non- osi](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?ur l=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non- osi&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C 1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=9lr EsZWOpc3wqylKs7yF%2FzxYwZsUUamP3oUrWDWcHCc%3D&reser ved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non- osi&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61c e42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c d011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951707067&sdata=Mkz1CUW26UJ 2X6wIEgO0UGz0ZJqWhkXMFwc5v5420tU%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2- test](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- test&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7 C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=8v 205MD3HTYg3yLmGJS3SIDA5um9sVJfOa5CXViZjyU%3D&reserv ed=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?ur l=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- test&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61 ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951707067&sdata=fzDqTRet6M gfwmVIq8mb5%2BgB3rAiVteCQklombfBMaU%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2- libc](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?u rl=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- libc&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7 C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Tz t293HJzFnGSkh1mUBew8dAsaZ4axWq2ml8UhQ%2FSTI%3D&rese rved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- libc&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61 ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951717077&sdata=wpaAwogDjz DwRzpoB5vInxeqtMkNoawyPFg1j3m9omw%3D&reserved=0>) * [edk2- staging](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/ /?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- staging&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata =bcNbt7Y7KoBrcnW4fAc4jbGgJL%2B4lYUkVLhYNo37OiM%3D&r eserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.co%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=bR1nvNPVi%2BQ1NrpSJQlwdLTZB3SigLFQ3KV63kUTUzk%3D&reserved=0 m/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2- staging&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C b61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951717077&sdata=5ehzG40 XuHbF56QwzFHyY8krO1NwGDWnFVMZdZ9OUvM%3D&reserved=0>) # GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process NOTE: All steps below use [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&dat a=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b 544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4 7%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5 Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0<https:/ /nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=02%7C01%7CBret.B arkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebe b5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248 265951727054&sdata=IrlV0ptekGi4Sz%2FxBYhIa5LiRuI3jlKE9J zgwbKGP6o%3D&reserved=0>) as an example. Several repositories are supported. ## Author/Developer Steps * Create a personal fork of [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&dat a=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b 544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4 7%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5 Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=0<https:/ /nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=02%7C01%7CBret.B arkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebe b5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248 265951727054&sdata=IrlV0ptekGi4Sz%2FxBYhIa5LiRuI3jlKE9J zgwbKGP6o%3D&reserved=0>) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetting- started-with-github%2Ffork-a- repo&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7 C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=um I3eqOh03qmt9YlPo33ujypu90YwImAvuxh5SlrM%2Bw%3D&rese rved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetti ng-started-with-github%2Ffork-a- repo&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61 ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951737053&sdata=pC%2F9W90Z NlmGQFNy97ee1xQMJ93XC%2Bdo5lmIdZhnRk0%3D&reserved=0> * Create a new branch from edk2/master in personal fork of edk2 repository. * Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix to new branch. Make sure to follow the commit message format requirements. The only change with this RFC is that the Cc: lines to maintainers/reviewers should not be added. The Cc: lines are still supported, but they should only be used to add reviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are not members of TianoCore. * Push branch with new commits to personal fork * Create a pull request against TianoCore edk2/master https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaboratin g-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcreating-a-pull- request&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata =2GVrQy0FGwd4CCeGveh99HL3zS1ekRfAAaKhhRiOMpU%3D&res erved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/ ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcoll aborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcreating-a- pull- request&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C b61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951737053&sdata=sZjbyeR ye35une4C2y5RQ83ah%2B01o4XhFNXsvIXT1l0%3D&reserved=0> * If pull request has more than 1 commit, then fill in the pull request title and decryption information for Patch #0. Do not leave defaults. s/decryption/description/ (Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.) * Do not assign reviewers. The webhook assigns maintainers and reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. * If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback that requires changes, then make add commits to the current branch with the requested changes. Once all s/make add/add/ changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series and commit comments as needed for perform a forced push to the branch in the personal fork of the edk2 repository. This step may be repeated if multiple versions of the patch series are required to address all code review feedback. Do I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first push incremental patches on top of the series, then do a rebase (squashing updates as necessary) and finally do a force-push, for the next round of review? To me as a reviewer, that's extra work. I'm used to locally comparing the v(n) patch set to v(n+1) with git-range-diff, and/or with some personal scripts. I wouldn't encourage incremental patches appended -- even temporarily -- to the branch, because (a) it's extra review work (it requires me to review something that has zero chance to get into the git history as-is), and (b) it superficially resembles the github.com-specific bad practice called "squash on merge", and (c) it runs the risk that the maintainer responsible for ultimately merging the series ends up actually merging the incremental (= "fixup") patches in isolation (without squashing them). OPEN: How should minimum review period be set? Labels? Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require reviewers to start providing their feedback within one week. One thing that I find important is that a maintainer can signal "I got your work in my queue, but I may need more time". And a special case of that are automated out-of-office responses. I think they are very helpful (when a contributor feels they are bottlenecked on review), but I'm not sure how one can configure that via github. I certainly would not share my out-of-office times with github. (I set the start/end dates in my email infrastructure, at the moment, but the out- of-office messages it sends do not contain the dates either, on purpose.) ## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Steps * Receive an event that a new pull request was opened * Evaluate the files modified by the entire pull request and each commit in the pull request and cross references against `Maintainters.txt` in the root s/cross references/cross reference them/ ? of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request and each commit in the pull request. Individual commit assignments are performed by adding a commit comment of the following form: [CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney * Generate and sends git patch review emails to the email archive. Emails s/sends/send/ are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages. * If the author/developer performs a forced push to the branch in their personal fork of the edk2 repository, then a new set of patch review emails with patch series Vx is sent to the email archive and any Cc: tags in commit messages. * Receive events associated with all code review activities and generate and send emails to the email archive that shows all review comments and all responses closely matching the email contents seen in the current email based code review process. * Generate and send email when pull request is merged or closed. ## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps * Make sure GitHub configuration is setup to 'Watch' the repositories that you have maintainer ship or review responsibilities and that email s/maintainer ship/maintainership/ notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notifications when a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a pull request and individual commits. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fmanaging- subscriptions-and-notifications-on- github%2Fconfiguring- notifications&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40micros oft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86 f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&amp ;sdata=OlkiyymcQi39P8%2FOJZG4yjh4h%2FHerkHBe5bCSQQFLOU% 3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.ou%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=rMEZi8aziILY8pK5e%2BvnY3TgsvV4EqzQ2qXf8QvaqIc%3D&reserved=0 tlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgit hub%2Fmanaging-subscriptions-and-notifications-on- github%2Fconfiguring- notifications&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft. com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141 af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951747044&sdata=F JwHjpFL7UFtZ9N12pSvQSXci3IqCJJVJXI9dDzlHHU%3D&reserved= 0> * Subscribe to the email archive associated with the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianoc ore-code-review- poc&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C 1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0I uvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserve d=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fti anocore-code-review- poc&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61c e42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c d011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951747044&sdata=zbDuJd9lW3K oiuzGo6%2BU14Mnude7lZnbCeXQHJnR%2BCg%3D&reserved=0> Important: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list, for now. Once we're ready to switch over, I'll file an internal ticket at RH to either rename the list, or (which is probably better) to create a new list (no "-poc" suffix). The second option seems more useful because then the webhook development / bugfixing (if any) could perhaps occur in parallel to the normal edk2 workflow. * Review pull requests and commits assigned by the TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service and use the GitHub web UI to provide all review feedback. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaboratin g-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Freviewing-changes-in- pull- requests&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.c om%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141a f91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdat a=51Ljm3wUbBTWT8hcaBD1ZQznSROvAQqnoTzQmD6K%2FLY%3D& reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.c%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=%2BfY0MvXLLyf%2Bt7w2VFkWgfnEGFjgqdJo7WsZmQN8yLE%3D&reserved=0 om/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fc ollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Freviewing- changes-in-pull- requests&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7 Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951757040&sdata=Iav2d2 fP2vw9mS9uA76tN3uQcIbl52D6BT963cD7ZC4%3D&reserved=0> * Wait for Author/Developer to respond to all feedback and add commits with code changes as needed to resolve all feedback. This step may be repeated if the developer/author need to produce multiple versions of the patch series to address all feedback. (same question about the incremental fixup patches as above) * Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Tested-by responses on individual commits. Or add Series- reviewed-by, Series-acked-by, or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire pull request. * Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commit messages in the pull request. * Perform final review of patches and commit message tags. If there are not issues, set the `push` label to run final set of CI checks and auto merge the pull request into master. # Maintainers.txt Format Changes Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers at the end of M: and R: lines in []. For example: M: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@...<mailto:michael.d.kinney@int el.com>> [mdkinney] # TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull request based on assignments documented in Maintainers.txt and generates an email archive of all pull request and code review activities. s/generates/generate/ (or s/Assign/Assigns/) https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email-archive- webhook&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.co m%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af 91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata =7CJNJMEXrxoynjavmEwjzUyRbfNUIZ3FEG4kDRXvhI4%3D&res erved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/ ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email- archive- webhook&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C b61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951757040&sdata=FihVwcw fqewohsmqUECWG36TR1iCQVhVHq02iMZkEL8%3D&reserved=0> # Email Archive Subscription Service The emails are being delivered to the following RedHat email subscription service. Please subscribe to receive the emails and to be able to view the email archives. https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianoc ore-code-review- poc&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C 1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab 2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=q0I uvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserve d=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url =https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fti anocore-code-review- poc&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61c e42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c d011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951767033&sdata=482jeizloSf EobAk0F8%2BvP9FZptdF6oC90A%2BYSQZcds%3D&reserved=0> The email archives are at this link: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review- poc%2Findex.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40mic rosoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988b f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640& amp;sdata=nedUfkmMmI5T6GtAxQCW4q6xt38%2FezeDYmfq6cpRD0M %3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection.o%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=ybz14MP2cfsQUGM2JxpsZNq2q%2BZU0e835ZNpKpV9M9Y%3D&reserved=0 utlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman% 2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review- poc%2Findex.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microso ft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf86f 141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951767033&sdat a=78HRihY2z%2Fll0qoC05RMh8I%2Bwri9rwIwblxNBYFPecw%3D&re served=0> The following sections show some example pull requests and code reviews to help review the generated emails, their contents, and threading. ## Email Achieve Thread View https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fthread.html%2300289&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barke lew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56% 7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275 86678640&sdata=GtrEudehfXiSU6ZwH2zKO35CPPPVk0ctZIzh kpI6DkE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.prote%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611252057&sdata=ug4axzMxZLKuGz8Eps6xepyEjv1er8atkiOZDpFca2c%3D&reserved=0 ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fm ailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fthread.html%2300289&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew% 40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72 f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63724826595177 7024&sdata=%2BU8aFUi4kPBeJdlyW%2FERNtp5Fum5gZrWkgCTI8pw z14%3D&reserved=0> ## Example patch series with 1 patch https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fthread.html%2300340&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barke lew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56% 7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275 86678640&sdata=ZGpI8%2BzIA9OMFm3pSCc2DQ4F5ZxtDSAXtj dFjD%2BY3NA%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.p%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611262052&sdata=7pNJG%2BcGgplnp0gOQmPx8ly3IgxLk7DBPW0liL%2BQ97c%3D&reserved=0 rotection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com %2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review- poc%2F2020- May%2Fthread.html%2300340&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew% 40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72 f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63724826595177 7024&sdata=gXn%2B9z8MIdnJyUkk2xR1mK%2FL710jUDEeNhK74EUk b9A%3D&reserved=0> ## Example patch series with < 10 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00289.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=JyaUyvYfZD7b%2F2wN%2BpS%2B68b%2BwyKoZ3Rba4 ol%2FyahQVU%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.p%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611262052&sdata=7pNJG%2BcGgplnp0gOQmPx8ly3IgxLk7DBPW0liL%2BQ97c%3D&reserved=0 rotection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com %2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review- poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00289.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951787022&s data=yvE8%2F%2FKOJUj%2BD4ZmtT3fZPAb2KBsGcAqxt%2FKwRKa6h A%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00030.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=bQHIJIQq4Pri8iK3vPxMDMWz%2BKtXcyuPdhr8y7gF pXA%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protectio%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611262052&sdata=g37erq7Um78njCs8L%2BZ75MBqyGEoZrIEk1epGOJ5va0%3D&reserved=0 n.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailm an%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00030.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951787022&s data=zz5BgISidxyQVI%2BQihn%2Fq%2Fv9%2B5%2Fn2vpaeyvFbIiA igs%3D&reserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00018.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=uMIRGOq%2BVCOSwDzXkG4yueYS4ZJ7BWfsp3Z4%2B9 lh6hE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protect%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611262052&sdata=GcYd84S79b4L09WB1b40cfbx5y%2FREQnWZsljxNeAm2U%3D&reserved=0 ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmai lman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00018.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951797016&s data=yN0WkrPdk1EEvyPwlqCG%2B6HTOpa3iT85w2QhXQJ2xYE%3D&r eserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00008.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=3CBkdqDxRt4IxtECpWQdKJL%2Bf4HFqqHCXo4loxNT zAE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protectio%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611262052&sdata=g37erq7Um78njCs8L%2BZ75MBqyGEoZrIEk1epGOJ5va0%3D&reserved=0 n.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailm an%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00008.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951797016&s data=qF2vw8XdQfY0ECclzhbpd60vIgTj2Bzl5RjC%2F4EdbA8%3D&r eserved=0> ## Example patch series with > 80 patches * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00198.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=fDfQnifOMzyzLMdP4xH8koKCiSj7ZiuYyrrSZXTf3d 4%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protection%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611262052&sdata=oLtR%2Br3OOn3hqOQ6glrp56aXidbNCpd%2F8w06mY8j7dA%3D&reserved=0. outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman %2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00198.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951807013&s data=uXAPx9iTDbQbiv40j3EiqIP51nlFLQ43ghvAsjt4dhs%3D&res erved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00116.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=lcxA3tTna%2BdmTpcNMmPlS%2B47llMAcIEjhCEqxV 7TDOc%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.protect%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611262052&sdata=GcYd84S79b4L09WB1b40cfbx5y%2FREQnWZsljxNeAm2U%3D&reserved=0 ion.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmai lman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00116.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951807013&s data=4ANIbH2YDPjN7H4gHGtbgNkAbM9EeVFOf%2FoWqTiXtiA%3D&r eserved=0> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianoco re-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00035.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40 microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6372482275866786 40&sdata=CgvZ8e%2B7L4nacvRE35KqEyC%2F1CjDYP6wI10qn% 2BoX39Y%3D&reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnam06.safelinks.prote%2F&;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C4235599e115f484ba25c08d7f86dfde9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637251023611262052&sdata=m34ZxHM9zr3VFz25TIiYpmxnqR0hPT96UIJppWgU4os%3D&reserved=0 ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redhat.com%2Fm ailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020- May%2Fmsg00035.html&data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40micr osoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebeb5b%7C72f988bf 86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951817004&s data=1jX%2FuPSMlRvzN9eZcv5U7k4JmwfJJwaVhDJ%2BrA6mPYc%3D &reserved=0> # Tasks to Complete * Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of new code review process. * Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2- codereview repository * Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to be compatible with GitHub IDs at the end of M: and R: statements * Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests and emails * Determine if webhook requests must be serialized? Current POC is serialized. * Make sure webhook has error handling for all unexpected events/states. * Add logging of all events and emails to webhook The logging sounds very useful, thank you. Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the message-id of that email, if possible. * Add admin interface to webhook * Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7 support # Ideas for Future Enhancements * Run PatchCheck.py before assigning maintainers/reviewers. * Add a simple check that fails if a single patch spans more than one package. Hmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this rule. * Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested- by, Series-Reviewed-by, Series-Acked-by, Series-Tested-by made by assigned maintainers/reviewers. Once all commits have required tags, auto update commit messages in the branch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push` label to run CI and auto merge if all CI checks pass. Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)! Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Laszlo Ersek #295 On 05/14/20 23:26, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: Itâ€™s code management for the Instagram generation I find this an extremely good characterization! And, I find the fact soul-destroying. Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Laszlo Ersek #296 On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to allow for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would pursue with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9 PRs for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one. Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and a half or so, rather than the multiple months that weâ€™re now verging on. This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with). And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2 process to github. Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches, moving hunks between patches). It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a separate section to "splitting commits". In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies. Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal breaker with Phabricator. The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches. It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged), and the patch count varied significantly: v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015) v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015) v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015) v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015) v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015) (The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open sourcing and upstreaming the real PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.) The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram generation seems to be missing. I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the following threads on the list: * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700 * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700 I have two sets of comments: (1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently came from multiple sources. (1a) Review was slow and spotty. The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted. But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this: - v1 1/9: no feedback - v1 2/9: 12 days after posting - v1 3/9: 16 days after posting - v1 4/9: no feedback - v1 5/9: no feedback - v1 6/9: no feedback - v1 7/9: no feedback - v1 8/9: no feedback - v1 9/9: no feedback (1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1 thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May 11th). (1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they didn't fare too well: - v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting; no other feedback thus far - v2 02/12: ditto - v2 03/12: no feedback - v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting - v2 05/12: no feedback - v2 06/12: no feedback - v2 07/12: no feedback - v2 08/12: no feedback - v2 09/12: no feedback - v2 10/12: no feedback - v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer (yours truly), on the day of posting - v2 12/12: no feedback In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change with the transition to github.com. (2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series restructuring is important. (2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2). (2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new library instance." Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg. Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order changes, and an increased patch count. Thanks Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...> #297 “… boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away.” - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@...> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 12:34 AM To: rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@...>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process On 05/14/20 23:26, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: Itâ€™s code management for the Instagram generation I find this an extremely good characterization! And, I find the fact soul-destroying. Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...> #298 I agree with some of your points, but I don’t believe that this calls for dependencies at all. If a PR can pass CI with the changes, it’s functionally unordered. And if a PR can’t, it has to wait until the PRs that can are in. This also allows the group to focus on getting one thing done at a time. I use rebase all the time and agree that it’s very good at precise history management. If a given PR requires that level of control, those tools will always be there. But just as you say that the simple should not preclude the difficult, the difficult 5% should not needlessly complicated the simple 95%. For what it’s worth, this is all posturing on my part. I intend – and, indeed, am eager to – follow the process that we’ve been helping Mike to set up. - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@...> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 AM To: rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to allow for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would pursue with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9 PRs for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one. Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and a half or so, rather than the multiple months that weâ€™re now verging on. This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with). And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2 process to github. Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches, moving hunks between patches). It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a separate section to "splitting commits". In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies. Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal breaker with Phabricator. The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches. It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged), and the patch count varied significantly: v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015) v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015) v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015) v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015) v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015) (The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open sourcing and upstreaming the real PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.) The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram generation seems to be missing. I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the following threads on the list: * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700 * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700 I have two sets of comments: (1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently came from multiple sources. (1a) Review was slow and spotty. The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted. But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this: - v1 1/9: no feedback - v1 2/9: 12 days after posting - v1 3/9: 16 days after posting - v1 4/9: no feedback - v1 5/9: no feedback - v1 6/9: no feedback - v1 7/9: no feedback - v1 8/9: no feedback - v1 9/9: no feedback (1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1 thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May 11th). (1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they didn't fare too well: - v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting; no other feedback thus far - v2 02/12: ditto - v2 03/12: no feedback - v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting - v2 05/12: no feedback - v2 06/12: no feedback - v2 07/12: no feedback - v2 08/12: no feedback - v2 09/12: no feedback - v2 10/12: no feedback - v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer (yours truly), on the day of posting - v2 12/12: no feedback In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change with the transition to github.com. (2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series restructuring is important. (2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2). (2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new library instance." Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg. Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order changes, and an increased patch count. Thanks Laszlo
More All Messages By This Member
Rebecca Cran #327 On 5/14/20 3:26 PM, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: I feel like this process is a good compromise. It’s not perfect (frankly, I’m a fan of enforced squash merges, which can maintain bisectability if managed well), but it allows for rapid iteration, ease of contribution, and approaches the workflow that many who have never used email to maintain a project would be familiar with. It’s code management for the Instagram generation, and I for one welcome our new insect overlords. Or at least, that's what Microsoft is betting on! :D Personally, I remain unconvinced about the usability of Github Pull Requests for a project the size of EDK2, but I hope to be proven wrong. -- Rebecca Cran
More All Messages By This Member
Rebecca Cran #328 On 5/15/20 1:34 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: On 05/14/20 23:26, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: Itâ€™s code management for the Instagram generation I find this an extremely good characterization! And, I find the fact soul-destroying. I was working on a web project recently, and apparently people don't even check email any more! So someone had set up a Slack channel where Github pull requests were posted/linked, and we were supposed to react with thumbs-up, "OK" etc. emoji to indicate we'd seen/reviewed/accepted the request. -- Rebecca Cran
More All Messages By This Member
Tomas Pilar (tpilar) #337 I actually agree with you, when we migrated from reviewboard to github pull requests, I was sorely disappointed with the PR functionality and ergonomics. Tomas Pilar toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rebecca Cran via groups.io Sent: 14 May 2020 22:47 To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew@...; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@... Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process On 5/14/20 3:26 PM, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: I feel like this process is a good compromise. Itï¿½s not perfect (frankly, Iï¿½m a fan of enforced squash merges, which can maintain bisectability if managed well), but it allows for rapid iteration, ease of contribution, and approaches the workflow that many who have never used email to maintain a project would be familiar with. Itï¿½s code management for the Instagram generation, and I for one welcome our new insect overlords. Or at least, that's what Microsoft is betting on! :D Personally, I remain unconvinced about the usability of Github Pull Requests for a project the size of EDK2, but I hope to be proven wrong. -- Rebecca Cran IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
More All Messages By This Member

1 - 13 of 13

Previous Topic Next Topic

Home Hashtags About Features Pricing Updates Terms Help Twitter