From: "Nate DeSimone" <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>
To: "rfc@edk2.groups.io" <rfc@edk2.groups.io>,
"lersek@redhat.com" <lersek@redhat.com>,
"bret.barkelew@microsoft.com" <bret.barkelew@microsoft.com>,
"devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>,
"Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 18:02:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BL0PR11MB3489074939AF10D720811CE9CDB90@BL0PR11MB3489.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eb33d054-5e31-bb97-e3fb-a1cdd8373037@redhat.com>
> On 5/19/20 01:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
> That seems strange. I have one rule per edk2-* list, for moving such incoming
> email into the appropriate list folder. That's all.
>
> While I read all the subject lines (skim all the threads) on edk2-devel,
> generally, if you share reviewer or maintainer responsibilities for some
> subsystem, then people posting patches for that subsystem are supposed to
> CC you explicitly, in addition to messaging the list.
I tend to make the assumption that people do not CC me on the patches that they are supposed to CC me on. So I set up my filtering rules to do a deep inspection of the message contents to see if it touches a package that I maintain.
> Checking whether others have commented is near trivial if your MUA
> supports a threaded view.
>
> Checking whether a co-maintainer of yours has pushed a given series is also
> simple if they diligently report the fact of merging on the list (in the subject
> patch threads).
Yes, checking for comments is trivial. However, my fellow co-maintainers are not very diligent on sending push notifications. So when I see comments from one of my fellow co-maintainers I immediately ask myself the question: "Did they already push this, and does it make sense for me to spend time reviewing this patch series?" Answering that question involves a git pull and a review of history in gitk to see what has been done already.
> I think this is not your job, as a reviewer/maintainer. Once your review is
> complete, or blocked on a question you need an answer to, the ball is back in
> the contributor's court. They can answer, or post the next version, whenever
> they see fit. Until then, the most they can expect of you is answering any
> further questions they might have for understanding your previous feedback
> better. You need not push contributors to complete their contributions.
I think my experience is colored somewhat here. I'd say more than half the time, the contributor is another Intel employee. Often times, they are contributing code changes that I asked them to implement. :)
> "State machine" is a very good analogy! Personally, I don't find it tiresome.
> Yes, it's important to recognize the events (= new emails) that trigger
> transitions between states. (For example: when I complete a review, when I
> get a new version of a series or a brand new series, when I get asked a
> question.) Once I recognize those events correctly, I just diligently massage
> said tags ("stars").
>
> And I keep iterating over my set of "starred" messages; I do actual work
> (e.g., reviews) in "bottom halves"; detached from new emails.
>
> I don't find this a burden as I have to manage my "real life" with task lists
> anyway. Without them, my real life would collapse in a week; so it's nothing
> unusual for me. (And no, I don't allow shady cloud-based automatisms to
> manage my life for me; I value my privacy way above my
> comfort.)
Agreed that I also keep my personal task lists in a paper notebook and manage my real life list manually. However, my real life list is much smaller (since I have most of the context in my head already)... and its private. Everything I do on this mailing list is public anyway, so having some centralized service keep track of state transitions doesn't bother me. The "bottom half" of that state transition is going to generate a public email from my address, so it's not like the current state of the state machine that I'm running in my head is private.
Thanks,
Nate
> Thanks!
> Laszlo
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-19 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-19 7:21 [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process Nate DeSimone
2020-05-19 8:39 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-19 18:02 ` Nate DeSimone [this message]
2020-05-19 16:54 ` Sean
2020-05-19 18:02 ` Nate DeSimone
2020-05-19 19:34 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-19 19:59 ` Nate DeSimone
2020-05-19 20:10 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-19 21:02 ` Nate DeSimone
2020-05-19 21:07 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-20 17:05 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-20 17:21 ` Sean
2020-05-22 1:56 ` Andrew Fish
2020-05-20 21:53 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-22 5:31 ` [EXTERNAL] " Bret Barkelew
2020-05-19 21:22 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-19 21:35 ` Nate DeSimone
2020-05-19 21:38 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-19 20:41 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-19 22:25 ` Sean
2020-05-21 13:30 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-21 17:53 ` Sean
2020-05-22 2:59 ` Andrew Fish
2020-05-22 5:48 ` [EXTERNAL] " Bret Barkelew
2020-05-22 17:20 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-25 4:09 ` [EXTERNAL] " Andrew Fish
2020-05-25 18:10 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-25 18:28 ` Andrew Fish
2020-05-26 11:17 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-26 14:39 ` Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
2020-05-26 16:13 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-27 1:52 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-27 9:27 ` Tomas Pilar (tpilar)
2020-05-27 12:12 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-27 22:07 ` Rebecca Cran
2020-05-27 17:39 ` Andrew Fish
2020-05-27 17:45 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-28 6:57 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-27 18:32 ` Laszlo Ersek
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-05-09 2:59 Michael D Kinney
2020-05-09 4:22 ` Ni, Ray
2020-05-11 19:47 ` [edk2-devel] " Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-09 18:24 ` Rebecca Cran
2020-05-10 21:29 ` Michael D Kinney
2020-05-10 21:43 ` Rebecca Cran
2020-05-11 1:37 ` Michael D Kinney
2020-05-11 20:05 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-11 20:00 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-11 19:50 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-11 19:39 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-11 20:09 ` [EXTERNAL] " Bret Barkelew
2020-05-11 20:43 ` Michael D Kinney
2020-05-14 21:26 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-15 1:19 ` Michael D Kinney
2020-05-15 4:49 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-15 9:07 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-05-15 15:43 ` Bret Barkelew
2020-05-18 11:48 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
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=BL0PR11MB3489074939AF10D720811CE9CDB90@BL0PR11MB3489.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--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