On 8 Mar 2018, at 12:30, Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 8 Mar 2018, at 12:13, Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 8 Mar 2018, at 10:33, Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> People,
>>>>
>>>> I've noticed that I'm getting a little bit lost with github and
the
>>>> way SSSD has its tags organized there.
>>>>
>>>> As it may actually affect other people (and in case it does not,
let's
>>>> just skip the following suggestion) ... I'd like to suggest the
>>>> following tags to the project:
>>>>
>>>> - Accepted: We already have it;
>>>>
>>>> - Rejected: We already have it.
>>>>
>>>> - Tests needed: This one can either replace the "Changes
Requested"
>>>> (in case it's split in a few different tags) or be used together ...
>>>> but the idea is to identify that tests are missing from a PR without
>>>> going through the whole discussions happening there;
>>>
>>> What do you propose would be the action after tests needed? Should it be a
follow up PR, a ticket for the project, a ticket for downstream..?
>>>
>>
>> After the "Tests needed" tag is added the developer should either:
>> - Write the tests upstream (considering that we have infra for that,
>> which is not the case for all the PRs)
>
> Here I’m really worried that unless we have a ticket, this won’t happen. Look at the
“CI” milestone in pagure.. So I would say this case should result in Changes requested,
filing a ticket or asking downstream QE to write a test.
Hmm. My original thought is that the PR wouldn't even be pushed
without the tests (as it happened already with a few PRs) ... not that
we'd push and leave the tag there.
So it would mean “the code looks good and will be pushed as long as you sort out tests one
way or another” ?
>
>> - Provide a "link" of the related downstream tests that were
>> broken/were added passing
>>
>
> This makes sense, although I would argue this should already be default. But if you
don’t think so, we can try the tag and see how it goes.
Hmm. Indeed. I guess we can postpone this at least for now and focus
on your "downstream tests passed" tag ... which would be a better
investment of time.
Agreed?
Well, I don’t think the tests passed tag would come soon (as in, not this week, not the
next one). If you see a use-case for more tags, use them. But as Pavel said, I would at
least initially add a comment what do you want from the other part of the PR until we find
out how the process works best for us.
I mean, I don’t want to impose my workflow on others. If you think it makes sense, let’s
try it. Worst thing, we stop using the tags and remove them..
>
>> So, summing up, no ticket for the project, no ticket downstream ...
>> just making clear that the PR is stalled because "Tests are needed".
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>>> My worry about not supplying tests along with PRs is that the tests will
never be supplied..at least not in upstream..
>>
>> I understand why you're worried and I agree with that. See the answer
>> above and let me know if it fits your expectations.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Depends on (or something similar): This one can either replace the
>>>> "Changes Requested" (in case it's split in a few different
tags) or be
>>>> used together ... but the idea is to identify that we depend on
>>>> somework that still has to be done (either another PR, ticket or
>>>> something else that has to be implemented). Mind that I'm not sure
>>>> whether we'd be able to simply add a field saying what the PR
depends
>>>> on …
>>>
>>> I think this makes sense. At least for a casual observer it would be clear
that there is no work needed on this PR.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Postponed/Deferred: We have something similar for 2.0, but would be
>>>> nice to have a way to clearly see in which release we're going to
take
>>>> a look into a specific PR without having to dig in the discussions.
>>>> Here we could also have 1.16.1, 1.16.2, 2.0, …
>>>
>>> Tags are cheap, we can even have a postponed/$version. I guess even
depends/$PR might be OK as long as we only had a handful of dependecies.
>>>>
>>>> - Reworked: Although just removing the "Changes Requested"
label is
>>>> fine, maybe having a tag explicitly saying that something was Reworked
>>>> would be a clean way to differentiate between new PRs and PRs which
>>>> have been through a review already …
>>>
>>> I don’t know how this tag would be used, could you give me an example,
please?
>>
>> I usually have no idea (just by a quick look on github) whether a PR
>> has been re-worked or it's a new PR that's never been reviewed.
>> My impression is that having the "Reworked" tag would make simpler for
>> people to jump in and do a follow-up review on what has been addressed
>> in the first round(s) of review and then give their ACK instead of
>> just leaving it for the reviewer. Of course, the same can be achieved
>> without that tag ... so, it's just something that looks more
>> "organized" to me.
>
> OK, if this is something that was hitting you, maybe the tag might make sense. But,
then do you volunteer to maintain these tags? Because since I didn’t see this as a
problem, I’m afraid at least I wouldn’t maintain the tags.
I do volunteer to maintain the tags, for sure.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does the suggestion make sense? In case we have an agreement about
>>>> this topic, may I re-tag our PRs and start using those new tags from
>>>> new PRs?
>>>
>>> Another tag I was thinking of was “passes downstream tests”. With the amount
of time our downstream tests take, I’m not even sure how to integrate them with the usual
github flow like travis or centos CI use. So I was thinking about a bot that would nightly
scan PRs that have neither “pass” or “fail” tag, bundle those up in an RPM, run the
nightly tests and report back using a tag.
>>
>> I really like the idea!
>>
>> Another tag that may be added is something like "Urgent" for PRs that
>> are *really* *needed* for some specific reason (downstream, release,
>> etc …)
>
> Umm, fine, but how would others find out the list of urgent PRs? Isn’t it then easier
to drop a mail to the list?
Hmm. It may be easier to drop a mail to the list or even talk in our
weekly phone meeting.
So, yes, this one can be dropped.
>
>>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Fabiano Fidêncio
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>
>> Let me know in case I was not able to answer all your questions.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> --
>> Fabiano Fidêncio
>> _______________________________________________
>> sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org