Date
1 - 13 of 13
[EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
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:
(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.)
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).
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.)
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.
(or s/Assign/Assigns/)
Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the
message-id of that email, if possible.
rule.
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,s/decryption/description/
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.
(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.)
s/make add/add/
* 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
changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series andDo I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first
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.
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).
Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require
**OPEN**: How should minimum review period be set? Labels?
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.)
s/cross references/cross reference them/ ?
## 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
of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request ands/sends/send/
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
are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages.s/maintainer ship/maintainership/
* 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
notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notificationsImportant: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list,
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
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.
(same question about the incremental fixup patches as above)
* 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.
s/generates/generate/
* 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.
(or s/Assign/Assigns/)
The logging sounds very useful, thank you.
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
Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the
message-id of that email, if possible.
* Add admin interface to webhookHmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this
* 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.
rule.
* Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Reviewed-by,Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)!
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.
Laszlo
Michael D Kinney
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:
(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.)
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).
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.)
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.
(or s/Assign/Assigns/)
Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the
message-id of that email, if possible.
rule.
Laszlo
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,s/decryption/description/
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.
(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.)
s/make add/add/
* 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
changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series andDo I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first
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.
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).
Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require
**OPEN**: How should minimum review period be set? Labels?
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.)
s/cross references/cross reference them/ ?
## 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
of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request ands/sends/send/
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
are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages.s/maintainer ship/maintainership/
* 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
notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notificationsImportant: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list,
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
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.
(same question about the incremental fixup patches as above)
* 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.
s/generates/generate/
* 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.
(or s/Assign/Assigns/)
The logging sounds very useful, thank you.
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
Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the
message-id of that email, if possible.
* Add admin interface to webhookHmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this
* 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.
rule.
* Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Reviewed-by,Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)!
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.
Laszlo
Laszlo Ersek
On 05/11/20 22:09, Bret Barkelew wrote:
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.
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
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,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,s/decryption/description/
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.
(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.)s/make add/add/
* 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 allchanges are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series andDo I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first
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.
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).Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require
**OPEN**: How should minimum review period be set? Labels?
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.)s/cross references/cross reference them/ ?
## 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 rootof the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request ands/sends/send/
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. Emailsare also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages.s/maintainer ship/maintainership/
* 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 emailnotifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notificationsImportant: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list,
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
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.(same question about the incremental fixup patches as above)
* 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.s/generates/generate/
* 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.
(or s/Assign/Assigns/)The logging sounds very useful, thank you.
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
Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the
message-id of that email, if possible.* Add admin interface to webhookHmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this
* 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.
rule.* Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Reviewed-by,Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)!
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.
Laszlo
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
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:
(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.)
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).
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.)
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.
(or s/Assign/Assigns/)
Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the
message-id of that email, if possible.
rule.
Laszlo
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,s/decryption/description/
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.
(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.)
s/make add/add/
* 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
changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch series andDo I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first
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.
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).
Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require
**OPEN**: How should minimum review period be set? Labels?
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.)
s/cross references/cross reference them/ ?
## 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
of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull request ands/sends/send/
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
are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages.s/maintainer ship/maintainership/
* 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
notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notificationsImportant: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list,
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>
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.
(same question about the incremental fixup patches as above)
* 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.
s/generates/generate/
* 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.
(or s/Assign/Assigns/)
The logging sounds very useful, thank you.
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
Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the
message-id of that email, if possible.
* Add admin interface to webhookHmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this
* 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.
rule.
* Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Reviewed-by,Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)!
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.
Laszlo
Michael D Kinney
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
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,based code review process to
This is a proposal to change from the current email-a GitHub pull request-based code review process forall repositories maintainedin TianoCore. The current email-based code reviewprocess and commit messagerequirements are documented in Readme.md orReadme.rst at the root ofrepositories 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&
;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=0https://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>request and perform all
The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pullcode review activity using the GitHub web interface.This proposal does notchange any licenses or commit message requirements.It does require alldevelopers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHubaccounts.discussions on this topic is
One requirement that was collected from previousthe need for an email archive of all patches and codereview activities. Theexisting GitHub features to produce an email archivewere deemed insufficient.A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has beenimplemented to provide the emailarchive service. This email archive is read-only.You will not be able to sendemails to this archive or reply to emails in thearchive.proposed GitHub pull request
The sections below provide more details on thebased code review process, details on the emailarchive service, and a set ofremaining tasks make the email archive serviceproduction quality. It does notmake sense to support both the existing email-basedcode review and the GitHubpull request-based code review at the same time.Instead, this proposal is toswitch to the GitHub pull request-based code reviewand retire the email basedcode review process on the same date.today to run automated
The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requestsCI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainerto set the `push` label torequest the changes to be merged if all CI checkspass. With this proposal,once the code review is complete and the commitmessages have been updated, thesame pull request can be used to perform a final setof CI checks and merge thechanges into the master branch.the email archive service
I would like to collect feedback on this proposal andover the next two weeks with close of comments onFriday May 22, 2020. If allissues and concerns can be addressed, then I wouldlike to see the communityagree to make this change as soon as all remainingtasks are completed.[edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
# TianoCore Repositories to enable
*
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&
;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>)[edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
# GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process
**NOTE**: All steps below use
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 anexample. Several repositories are supported.[edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
## Author/Developer Steps
* Create a personal fork of
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>fork of edk2 repository.
* Create a new branch from edk2/master in personalnew branch. Make sure to
* Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix tofollow the commit message format requirements.The only change with thisRFC is that the Cc: lines tomaintainers/reviewers should **not** be added.The Cc: lines are still supported, but theyshould only be used to addreviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are notmembers of TianoCore.edk2/master
* Push branch with new commits to personal fork
* Create a pull request against TianoCorehttps://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>in the pull request title
* If pull request has more than 1 commit, then filland decryption information for Patch #0. Do notleave defaults.
s/decryption/description/
(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki
article at some point.)maintainers and reviewers to
* Do not assign reviewers. The webhook assignsthe pull request and each commit in the pullrequest.requires changes, then make
* If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback thatadd commits to the current branch with therequested changes. Once all
s/make add/add/changes are accepted on the current branch,reformulate the patch series andcommit comments as needed for perform a forcedpush to the branch in thepersonal fork of the edk2 repository. This stepmay be repeated if multipleversions of the patch series are required toaddress all code reviewfeedback.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).Labels?
**OPEN**: How should minimum review period be set?
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.)Steps
## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service* Receive an event that a new pull request wasopened* Evaluate the files modified by the entire pullrequest and each commit inthe pull request and cross references against`Maintainters.txt` in the root
s/cross references/cross reference them/ ?of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewersto the pull request andeach commit in the pull request. Individualcommit assignments are performedby adding a commit comment of the following form:email archive. Emails
[CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney
* Generate and sends git patch review emails to the
s/sends/send/are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commitmessages.the branch in their
* If the author/developer performs a forced push topersonal fork of the edk2 repository, then a newset of patch review emailswith patch series Vx is sent to the email archiveand any Cc: tags in commitmessages.activities and generate
* Receive events associated with all code reviewand send emails to the email archive that showsall review comments andall responses closely matching the email contentsseen in the current emailbased code review process.merged or closed.
* Generate and send email when pull request is'Watch' the repositories that
## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps
* Make sure GitHub configuration is setup toyou have maintainer ship or reviewresponsibilities and that email
s/maintainer ship/maintainership/notifications from GitHub are enabled. Thisenables email notificationswhen a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a pullrequest and individualcommits.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&
;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>the TianoCore GitHub Email
* Subscribe to the email archive associated withArchive 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.TianoCore GitHub Email
* Review pull requests and commits assigned by theArchive Webhook Service and use the GitHub web UIto provide all reviewfeedback.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>feedback and add commits with
* Wait for Author/Developer to respond to allcode changes as needed to resolve all feedback.This step may be repeatedif the developer/author need to produce multipleversions of the patchseries to address all feedback.(same question about the incremental fixup patches as
above)Acked-by, and Tested-by
* Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by,responses on individual commits. Or add Series-reviewed-by, Series-acked-by,or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire pullrequest.messages in the pull request.
* Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commitmessage tags. If there are not
* Perform final review of patches and commitissues, set the `push` label to run final set ofCI checks and auto mergethe pull request into master.the end of M: and R: lines
# Maintainers.txt Format Changes
Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers atin []. For example:<michael.d.kinney@...<mailto:michael.d.kinney@int
M: Michael D Kinney
el.com>> [mdkinney]based on assignments
# TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service
Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull requestdocumented in Maintainers.txt and generates an emailarchive of all pull requestand 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>RedHat email subscription
# Email Archive Subscription Service
The emails are being delivered to the followingservice. Please subscribe to receive the emails andto be able to view theemail 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>https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
The email archives are at this link:
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>requests and code reviews to
The following sections show some example pullhelp review the generated emails, their contents, andthreading.https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
## Email Achieve Thread View
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>https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
## Example patch series with 1 patch
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>https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
## Example patch series with < 10 patches
*
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>https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
## Example patch series with > 80 patches
*
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>new code review process.
# Tasks to Complete
* Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of* Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2-codereview repository* Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to becompatible with GitHub IDs atthe end of M: and R: statementsand emails
* Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests* Determine if webhook requests must be serialized?Current POC is serialized.* Make sure webhook has error handling for allunexpected events/states.* Add logging of all events and emails to webhookThe 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 webhooksupport
* Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7maintainers/reviewers.
# Ideas for Future Enhancements
* Run PatchCheck.py before assigning* Add a simple check that fails if a single patchspans 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 assignedmaintainers/reviewers.Once all commits have required tags, auto updatecommit messages in thebranch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push`label to run CI and automerge if all CI checks pass.Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the
webhook)!
Laszlo
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
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
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,based code review process to
This is a proposal to change from the current email-a GitHub pull request-based code review process forall repositories maintainedin TianoCore. The current email-based code reviewprocess and commit messagerequirements are documented in Readme.md orReadme.rst at the root ofrepositories 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&
;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=0https://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>request and perform all
The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pullcode review activity using the GitHub web interface.This proposal does notchange any licenses or commit message requirements.It does require alldevelopers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHubaccounts.discussions on this topic is
One requirement that was collected from previousthe need for an email archive of all patches and codereview activities. Theexisting GitHub features to produce an email archivewere deemed insufficient.A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has beenimplemented to provide the emailarchive service. This email archive is read-only.You will not be able to sendemails to this archive or reply to emails in thearchive.proposed GitHub pull request
The sections below provide more details on thebased code review process, details on the emailarchive service, and a set ofremaining tasks make the email archive serviceproduction quality. It does notmake sense to support both the existing email-basedcode review and the GitHubpull request-based code review at the same time.Instead, this proposal is toswitch to the GitHub pull request-based code reviewand retire the email basedcode review process on the same date.today to run automated
The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requestsCI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainerto set the `push` label torequest the changes to be merged if all CI checkspass. With this proposal,once the code review is complete and the commitmessages have been updated, thesame pull request can be used to perform a final setof CI checks and merge thechanges into the master branch.the email archive service
I would like to collect feedback on this proposal andover the next two weeks with close of comments onFriday May 22, 2020. If allissues and concerns can be addressed, then I wouldlike to see the communityagree to make this change as soon as all remainingtasks are completed.[edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
# TianoCore Repositories to enable
*
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&
;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>)[edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
# GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process
**NOTE**: All steps below use
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 anexample. Several repositories are supported.[edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
## Author/Developer Steps
* Create a personal fork of
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>fork of edk2 repository.
* Create a new branch from edk2/master in personalnew branch. Make sure to
* Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix tofollow the commit message format requirements.The only change with thisRFC is that the Cc: lines tomaintainers/reviewers should **not** be added.The Cc: lines are still supported, but theyshould only be used to addreviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are notmembers of TianoCore.edk2/master
* Push branch with new commits to personal fork
* Create a pull request against TianoCorehttps://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>in the pull request title
* If pull request has more than 1 commit, then filland decryption information for Patch #0. Do notleave defaults.
s/decryption/description/
(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki
article at some point.)maintainers and reviewers to
* Do not assign reviewers. The webhook assignsthe pull request and each commit in the pullrequest.requires changes, then make
* If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback thatadd commits to the current branch with therequested changes. Once all
s/make add/add/changes are accepted on the current branch,reformulate the patch series andcommit comments as needed for perform a forcedpush to the branch in thepersonal fork of the edk2 repository. This stepmay be repeated if multipleversions of the patch series are required toaddress all code reviewfeedback.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).Labels?
**OPEN**: How should minimum review period be set?
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.)Steps
## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service* Receive an event that a new pull request wasopened* Evaluate the files modified by the entire pullrequest and each commit inthe pull request and cross references against`Maintainters.txt` in the root
s/cross references/cross reference them/ ?of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewersto the pull request andeach commit in the pull request. Individualcommit assignments are performedby adding a commit comment of the following form:email archive. Emails
[CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney
* Generate and sends git patch review emails to the
s/sends/send/are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commitmessages.the branch in their
* If the author/developer performs a forced push topersonal fork of the edk2 repository, then a newset of patch review emailswith patch series Vx is sent to the email archiveand any Cc: tags in commitmessages.activities and generate
* Receive events associated with all code reviewand send emails to the email archive that showsall review comments andall responses closely matching the email contentsseen in the current emailbased code review process.merged or closed.
* Generate and send email when pull request is'Watch' the repositories that
## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps
* Make sure GitHub configuration is setup toyou have maintainer ship or reviewresponsibilities and that email
s/maintainer ship/maintainership/notifications from GitHub are enabled. Thisenables email notificationswhen a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a pullrequest and individualcommits.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&
;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>the TianoCore GitHub Email
* Subscribe to the email archive associated withArchive 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.TianoCore GitHub Email
* Review pull requests and commits assigned by theArchive Webhook Service and use the GitHub web UIto provide all reviewfeedback.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>feedback and add commits with
* Wait for Author/Developer to respond to allcode changes as needed to resolve all feedback.This step may be repeatedif the developer/author need to produce multipleversions of the patchseries to address all feedback.(same question about the incremental fixup patches as
above)Acked-by, and Tested-by
* Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by,responses on individual commits. Or add Series-reviewed-by, Series-acked-by,or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire pullrequest.messages in the pull request.
* Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commitmessage tags. If there are not
* Perform final review of patches and commitissues, set the `push` label to run final set ofCI checks and auto mergethe pull request into master.the end of M: and R: lines
# Maintainers.txt Format Changes
Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers atin []. For example:<michael.d.kinney@...<mailto:michael.d.kinney@int
M: Michael D Kinney
el.com>> [mdkinney]based on assignments
# TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service
Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull requestdocumented in Maintainers.txt and generates an emailarchive of all pull requestand 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>RedHat email subscription
# Email Archive Subscription Service
The emails are being delivered to the followingservice. Please subscribe to receive the emails andto be able to view theemail 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>https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
The email archives are at this link:
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>requests and code reviews to
The following sections show some example pullhelp review the generated emails, their contents, andthreading.https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
## Email Achieve Thread View
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>https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
## Example patch series with 1 patch
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>https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
## Example patch series with < 10 patches
*
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>https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=htt
## Example patch series with > 80 patches
*
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>new code review process.
# Tasks to Complete
* Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of* Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2-codereview repository* Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to becompatible with GitHub IDs atthe end of M: and R: statementsand emails
* Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests* Determine if webhook requests must be serialized?Current POC is serialized.* Make sure webhook has error handling for allunexpected events/states.* Add logging of all events and emails to webhookThe 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 webhooksupport
* Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7maintainers/reviewers.
# Ideas for Future Enhancements
* Run PatchCheck.py before assigning* Add a simple check that fails if a single patchspans 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 assignedmaintainers/reviewers.Once all commits have required tags, auto updatecommit messages in thebranch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push`label to run CI and automerge if all CI checks pass.Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the
webhook)!
Laszlo
Laszlo Ersek
On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
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
I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits toThis differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or
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.
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
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
“… 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:
And, I find the fact soul-destroying.
Laszlo
- 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:
It’s code management for the Instagram generationI find this an extremely good characterization!
And, I find the fact soul-destroying.
Laszlo
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
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:
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
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 toThis differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or
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.
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
Rebecca Cran
On 5/14/20 3:26 PM, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
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
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.Or at least, that's what Microsoft is betting on! :D
It’s code management for the Instagram generation, and I for one welcome our new insect overlords.
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
Rebecca Cran
On 5/15/20 1:34 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
--
Rebecca Cran
On 05/14/20 23:26, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: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.It’s code management for the Instagram generationI find this an extremely good characterization!
And, I find the fact soul-destroying.
--
Rebecca Cran
Tomas Pilar (tpilar)
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
Tomas Pilar
-----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:
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.
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. 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.Or at least, that's what Microsoft is betting on! :D
It�s code management for the Instagram generation, and I for one welcome our new insect overlords.
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.