public inbox for devel@edk2.groups.io
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Leif Lindholm" <leif@nuviainc.com>
To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: gaoliming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>,
	devel@edk2.groups.io, jiewen.yao@intel.com, "'Guptha,
	Soumya K'" <soumya.k.guptha@intel.com>,
	announce@edk2.groups.io, "'Kinney,
	Michael D'" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
	'Andrew Fish' <afish@apple.com>
Subject: Re: 回复: [edk2-devel] Tianocore community page on who we are - please review
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:22:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201001102218.GF5623@vanye> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6aeab706-9191-af72-c16f-bae0924880d7@redhat.com>

On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 10:44:10 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/30/20 12:13, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > Reviever or Maintainer can approve a patch. Any Maintainer can push a
> > patch that has been approved.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Assume Ard and myself are away and Jordan fails to report back in a week
> or so, but Rebecca or Peter have reviewed a patch on the list for
> OvmfPkg/Bhyve.
> 
> In that case, the patch should *NOT* be merged by (for example) you,
> just because you have push rights. The community will have to wait until
> Ard, Jordan, or myself return and provide an ACK.
> 
> If the maintainers are *consistently* irresponsive, then new maintainers
> need to be added, possibly with a larger community discussion. But if
> it's just a week (especially if we discussed our absence in advance),
> then maintainer absence is completely sufficient and justified for
> holding back patches, even if designated reviewers are OK with those
> patches.
> 
> I've been *really* disliking that, for example, the chief MdeModulePkg
> reviewers don't regularly ACK patches that have been reviewed by
> designated reviewers. If those reviewers are considered authoritative
> enough to fully approve patches -- and most of them they have push
> access already, anyway --, then we should rework Maintainers.txt so that
> Maintainer roles be handed out with a finer granularity. If you will:
> promote those reviewers to Maintainers, on their respective turfs.
> 
> > This can happen either:
> > - when the designated Maintainer for that patch is
> >   unavailable/unresponsive
> > - if the patch submitter is also a Maintainer of some other part of
> >   the repo.
> > 
> > No one can approve their own patches.
> > 
> > The act of adding a Reviewer means delegating the approval work to
> > them.
> 
> I don't see it like that; I think Maintainers should have the last word
> on every patch going in. And yes, this *requires* maintainers to be
> responsive.
> 
> ... Hm. Perhaps this is a sign that we really have two concepts here,
> we've just not been distinguishing them clearly enough. Maybe we need to
> split the reviewer role in two: "Approving Reviewer" and "Assistant
> Reviewer".

I think you're right. This is why we seem to have two sets of opinions
on this topic.

> For example, on OvmfPkg, I would suggest marking all current Reviewers
> as "Assistant Reviewers". On ArmVirtPkg, I'd likely propose you as an
> Approving Reviewer (you have stood in for Ard and myself anyway, for
> years now), and suggest Assistant Reviewer role for Julien.

Right, that makes sense to me.

If I was to start bikeshedding, I might suggest adding an A: tag for
approving reviewer. Possibly stealing the description from the current
R: tag, and adding the approving bit. And maybe nicking the QEMU R:
description outright for R:.

> On
> MdeModulePkg and other core packages, I'd defer the re-classification to
> Intel; we'd likely see a really large number of Approving Reviewers
> (justifiedly, I think).

Agreed.

/
    Leif

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-10-01 10:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-25 22:35 Tianocore community page on who we are - please review Soumya Guptha
2020-09-26  5:09 ` Yao, Jiewen
     [not found] ` <16383D375E5994D7.27235@groups.io>
2020-09-26  5:32   ` [edk2-devel] " Yao, Jiewen
2020-09-27  2:32     ` 回复: " gaoliming
2020-09-27  3:25       ` [edk2-announce] " Yao, Jiewen
2020-09-28 12:01         ` [EXTERNAL] " Leif Lindholm
2020-09-30  2:11           ` Yao, Jiewen
2020-09-30  9:25             ` 回复: " gaoliming
2020-09-30 10:13               ` Leif Lindholm
2020-10-01  8:44                 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-10-01  8:45                   ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-10-01 10:22                   ` Leif Lindholm [this message]
2020-10-01 23:52                     ` Soumya Guptha
2020-10-02  8:25                       ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-10-01  8:29               ` 回复: [EXTERNAL] RE: [edk2-announce] 回复: [edk2-devel] " Laszlo Ersek
2020-10-01  8:26             ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-09-28 11:56       ` Leif Lindholm
2020-09-28 16:19         ` Soumya Guptha
2020-09-29  1:05           ` 回复: " gaoliming
2020-09-28 17:15       ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-09-29  1:03         ` 回复: " gaoliming

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-list from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20201001102218.GF5623@vanye \
    --to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox