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.
- 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.
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.
>
>> 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?
>
>>
>>> 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