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)
- Provide a "link" of the related downstream tests that were
broken/were added passing
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.
>
> 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 ...)
>
> 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