From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.223.119]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.1505.1589491607006288315 for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 14:26:47 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@microsoft.com header.s=selector2 header.b=Lu+td2Lt; spf=pass (domain: microsoft.com, ip: 40.107.223.119, mailfrom: bret.barkelew@microsoft.com) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=RCJ/0vdLEwomwqAdlILePFmTzO4C/rGuudq+4QETMOFcNOKwQtMhO8PmSD7uYO0uIwezIcdaEYHc2Shn3N2WB+UrGWbMa6fOd0+6fStGnVhonNE40W1ZAkOZsAXLvXysQjbK9H4vIMok0xX9kPpGWWRNd1qi0JHuG73zKhO0mW1FKAKuHKFq65W9GE3/OrJGOP92d3TCbPM2dOm4gJw2EIjvkTuouED5oqKnHDsfME2LZOC6hb/g5Rmb9ST8JTTdYGkrMEfabV4Ezaa1sD2xfYJAghcEm13Q5p5JT24Ubb2a1oQbooVMWL6TnIlKG37XkWPkJmBMspMhDQ7FWSoPCA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=RYfjlIr47/70ZoViRN16C6HbIZCTE/Lkkox3SroMLv0=; b=cduh0iNJf9/e7WtzmCVcAzZcadQKBCq2xPKaAE4grXKvOg7+uNIBftIsjO4OFNtL0eZBaRN5JW5sQ5gb5LT81SZM1gazv7En49ivUEp/kHFj9aS+8Htww24Nbt03BhnqQw98HELLYU6/ZOFVEUSfp3KEBvHyYBE4a4HIrd/ye3+6Ch+kboWOD6ALrsRJTcxdRvuj5AiFS6btOAz78W+7ZqvVz+emJp709hXzfE4tNdbt7iGdX+cARa3JUm367M4thwqbyQg2BKS0zfsQz5eztyrPcTgUQ0b5lLOviPlln2CQsKpUUeygTkOssA0WPTQNWUqRskMXgkCZs70pcOuM2g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=microsoft.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=microsoft.com; dkim=pass header.d=microsoft.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=RYfjlIr47/70ZoViRN16C6HbIZCTE/Lkkox3SroMLv0=; b=Lu+td2LtnMsFfHo0plz52oge/vSWMD9lRJRDmcxV9g9hARc37zzDxUSx/jX89+GEYbz5nvoZWesJluKteEC58ZocFOOWzb78IaZtMcd995bIyqNZkOIBEo/fygJHNCXsaGGXeByxhY1XiOf1gjGGPCsB1SFGctAFSbWdGe0sfyU= Received: from CY4PR21MB0743.namprd21.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:903:b2::9) by CY4PR21MB0840.namprd21.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:903:b9::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3021.4; Thu, 14 May 2020 21:26:44 +0000 Received: from CY4PR21MB0743.namprd21.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9918:8742:bbe7:84e8]) by CY4PR21MB0743.namprd21.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9918:8742:bbe7:84e8%14]) with mapi id 15.20.3021.002; Thu, 14 May 2020 21:26:43 +0000 From: "Bret Barkelew" To: "Kinney, Michael D" , "devel@edk2.groups.io" , "lersek@redhat.com" , "rfc@edk2.groups.io" Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process Thread-Index: AdYlrbT8bFM60bvPQMeeqo8QbNJ7HwCHhx4AAAELN4UAAPT4UACYjp5F Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 21:26:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: ,<8389d6a6-aaf5-3c0e-904f-84f814c9d385@redhat.com> , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: msip_labels: MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Enabled=True;MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SiteId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47;MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_SetDate=2020-05-11T20:08:51.5248689Z;MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_ContentBits=0;MSIP_Label_f42aa342-8706-4288-bd11-ebb85995028c_Method=Privileged authentication-results: intel.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;intel.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com; x-originating-ip: [71.212.135.200] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c2186817-6462-4fd3-f37b-08d7f84d7fbd x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR21MB0840: x-ld-processed: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47,ExtAddr x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:6108; x-forefront-prvs: 040359335D x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: mHFDbAkgraoPUiibY9v8C9xwHlrms6GtK2cCW3oqQ0k13I6xxPsV6OcdsHEOM2bUkHCAvSd7mV1GGMT89kGGegvJbSW1KNOe6G4tibwkg8XTRCoHVfFMwWlOksDGRrYqdmGrW8csLFpxxPeun6Nyo4mt4XP85epuBfzGIj6f6jDBybUm+lbrtjY1dolOblqxmEjS2m003cSndCutsPWeJ93szaZGvBRRzQVp7VoIOVYpIJDmpSMpo5wfcPGtRwtQNyP9zjolaoxXD4maMfjEWIeUUOrLMbzhrHrIJGRI01cPyMqv2wvT0iCfnigK9FsN5I2V9DOVpA7TxZUppR7lAkFBMAw4dAw4CdTrbKNpZHgdU175gc4MSfnXQ2u4A419C1spLXdL3YOQWZEuqdAILQ== x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:CY4PR21MB0743.namprd21.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFTY:;SFS:(4636009)(346002)(136003)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(396003)(7696005)(52536014)(8990500004)(9686003)(8676002)(110136005)(316002)(8936002)(966005)(478600001)(55016002)(66946007)(2906002)(6506007)(53546011)(86362001)(33656002)(30864003)(26005)(64756008)(186003)(71200400001)(66556008)(82950400001)(76116006)(10290500003)(166002)(66446008)(5660300002)(82960400001)(66476007)(579004);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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 x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c2186817-6462-4fd3-f37b-08d7f84d7fbd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 May 2020 21:26:43.4750 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: GJXCdupjNsXdpvpkItM/rVknYqo+Q/IgNwsfj9Evbwdov2Z55MLHbC28JjxZr24koeUBUMe6gdFkRIbsmxvR0g== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR21MB0840 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY4PR21MB0743EB31621F1C92EF34B5F6EFBC0CY4PR21MB0743namp_" --_000_CY4PR21MB0743EB31621F1C92EF34B5F6EFBC0CY4PR21MB0743namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I feel like this process is a good compromise. It=92s not perfect (frankly,= I=92m a fan of enforced squash merges, which can maintain bisectability if= managed well), but it allows for rapid iteration, ease of contribution, an= d approaches the workflow that many who have never used email to maintain a= project would be familiar with. It=92s code management for the Instagram generation, and I for one welcome= our new insect overlords. - Bret From: Kinney, Michael D Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:43 PM To: Bret Barkelew; devel@edk2.groups.i= o; lersek@redhat.com= ; rfc@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request ba= sed Code Review Process Hi Bret, This is a good point. What I am proposing is the first version of the patch series submitted as = a pull request. Let the community do a complete review of the content. Th= e submitter can add patches to the end of the pull request addressing feedb= ack and can even add patches that make changes to previous patches until al= l feedback/conversations are resolved. This keeps the conversations comple= te and the conversations will also be archived to the email archive. At this point, the developer can reformulate the patch series and do force= d push of V2. Reviewers can review the cleaned up patch series and repeat = the process if there is more feedback, or move to final approval. By doing all the work on a single pull request, we minimize the total numb= er of pull requests in the repo. An alternative approach would be to open a new pull request for each new v= ersion of the series. This would preserve the GitHub conversations for eac= h version of the pull request. All the earlier ones would be closed/abando= ned, and only the final one would be closed/merged. Best regards, Mike From: Bret Barkelew Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:10 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@redhat.com; Kinney, Michael D ; rfc@edk2.groups.io Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request ba= sed Code Review Process As a counterpoint: if we force a new branch or force push on every tweak, = we lose the =93thread=94 of discussion on what caused the change, what chan= ged as a result, and the easy hook for the original change requester to rep= ly directly to the change as is. - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek via groups.io Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:39 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D; rfc@edk2.groups.io Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based = Code Review Process On 05/09/20 04:59, Michael D Kinney wrote: > Hello, > > This is a proposal to change from the current email-based code review pr= ocess to > a GitHub pull request-based code review process for all repositories mai= ntained > in TianoCore. The current email-based code review process and commit me= ssage > requirements are documented in Readme.md or Readme.rst at the root of > repositories along with a few Wiki pages: > > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgi= thub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FReadMe.rst&data=3D02%7C01= %7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f98= 8bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3DlVjWRL= sBC3xJpyRFeDrGjFhMOzAgi2V3vsAPxj7lIDw%3D&reserved=3D0 > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgi= thub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development-Proc= ess&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e509= 5408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668= 645&sdata=3DsgAhQxCpyjmzC%2FW%2BFiLLwaF2M8wscBz3k93ne25qUXs%3D&rese= rved=3D0 > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgi= thub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-= guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barke= lew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91= ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3DeHP9fcPMw6yjqTU%2B%= 2BUZ3FZkq8jZeM1LTU6dGTzmFp4Q%3D&reserved=3D0 > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgi= thub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message-Format&a= mp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d= 7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&a= mp;sdata=3Duq8G6nGyLpa7m%2F0fD2pwrcM9uixbKs6SLTge8e77M%2FY%3D&reserved= =3D0 > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgi= thub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature-Format= &data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e509540= 8d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645= &sdata=3DMz8dUn2L8dFwJdlo4LbaIKt2JrWE%2Fn4tBtVWenK%2F8Ck%3D&reserve= d=3D0 > > The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pull request and perform= all > code review activity using the GitHub web interface. This proposal does= not > change any licenses or commit message requirements. It does require all > developers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHub accounts. > > One requirement that was collected from previous discussions on this top= ic is > the need for an email archive of all patches and code review activities.= The > existing GitHub features to produce an email archive were deemed insuffi= cient. > A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has been implemented to provide t= he email > archive service. This email archive is read-only. You will not be able= to send > emails to this archive or reply to emails in the archive. > > The sections below provide more details on the proposed GitHub pull requ= est > based code review process, details on the email archive service, and a s= et of > remaining tasks make the email archive service production quality. It d= oes not > make sense to support both the existing email-based code review and the = GitHub > pull request-based code review at the same time. Instead, this proposal= is to > switch to the GitHub pull request-based code review and retire the email= based > code review process on the same date. > > The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requests today to run automated > CI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainer to set the `push` = label to > request the changes to be merged if all CI checks pass. With this propo= sal, > once the code review is complete and the commit messages have been updat= ed, the > same pull request can be used to perform a final set of CI checks and me= rge the > changes into the master branch. > > I would like to collect feedback on this proposal and the email archive = service > over the next two weeks with close of comments on Friday May 22, 2020. = If all > issues and concerns can be addressed, then I would like to see the commu= nity > agree to make this change as soon as all remaining tasks are completed. > > # TianoCore Repositories to enable > > * [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%= 2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40mic= rosoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd01= 1db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3DJvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54= N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=3D0) > * [edk2-platforms](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= =3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-platforms&data=3D02%7C0= 1%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f9= 88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3Dg8mgG= L6B%2FRsvm3935OpZMctOTKUoeHGi8jPuCVKQjbI%3D&reserved=3D0) > * [edk2-non-osi](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dh= ttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non-osi&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbre= t.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f= 141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3D9lrEsZWOpc3w= qylKs7yF%2FzxYwZsUUamP3oUrWDWcHCc%3D&reserved=3D0) > * [edk2-test](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttp= s%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-test&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.bark= elew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af9= 1ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3D8v205MD3HTYg3yLmGJ= S3SIDA5um9sVJfOa5CXViZjyU%3D&reserved=3D0) > * [edk2-libc](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttp= s%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-libc&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.bark= elew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af9= 1ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3DTzt293HJzFnGSkh1mU= Bew8dAsaZ4axWq2ml8UhQ%2FSTI%3D&reserved=3D0) > * [edk2-staging](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dh= ttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-staging&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbre= t.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f= 141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3DbcNbt7Y7KoBr= cnW4fAc4jbGgJL%2B4lYUkVLhYNo37OiM%3D&reserved=3D0) > > # GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process > > **NOTE**: All steps below use [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.= outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=3D0= 2%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7= C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3D= Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=3D0) as an > example. Several repositories are supported. > > ## Author/Developer Steps > * Create a personal fork of [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.= outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&data=3D0= 2%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7= C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&sdata=3D= Jvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&reserved=3D0) > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2F= help.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetting-started-with-github%2Ffork-a-repo&a= mp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d= 7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&a= mp;sdata=3DumI3eqOh03qmt9YlPo33ujypu90YwImAvuxh5SlrM%2Bw%3D&reserved=3D= 0 > > * Create a new branch from edk2/master in personal fork of edk2 reposi= tory. > > * Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix to new branch. Make s= ure to > follow the commit message format requirements. The only change with= this > RFC is that the Cc: lines to maintainers/reviewers should **not** be= added. > The Cc: lines are still supported, but they should only be used to a= dd > reviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are not members of TianoCor= e. > > * Push branch with new commits to personal fork > * Create a pull request against TianoCore edk2/master > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2F= help.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests= %2Fcreating-a-pull-request&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.c= om%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C= 1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=3D2GVrQy0FGwd4CCeGveh99HL3zS1ekRfAAaKh= hRiOMpU%3D&reserved=3D0 > > * If pull request has more than 1 commit, then fill in the pull reques= t title > and decryption information for Patch #0. Do not leave defaults. s/decryption/description/ (Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.) > > * Do not assign reviewers. The webhook assigns maintainers and review= ers to > the pull request and each commit in the pull request. > > * If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback that requires changes, the= n make > add commits to the current branch with the requested changes. Once = all s/make add/add/ > changes are accepted on the current branch, reformulate the patch se= ries and > commit comments as needed for perform a forced push to the branch in= the > personal fork of the edk2 repository. This step may be repeated if = multiple > versions of the patch series are required to address all code review > feedback. Do I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first push incremental patches on top of the series, then do a rebase (squashing updates as necessary) and finally do a force-push, for the next round of review? To me as a reviewer, that's extra work. I'm used to locally comparing the v(n) patch set to v(n+1) with git-range-diff, and/or with some personal scripts. I wouldn't encourage incremental patches appended -- even temporarily -- to the branch, because (a) it's extra review work (it requires me to review something that has zero chance to get into the git history as-is), and (b) it superficially resembles the github.com-specific bad practice called "squash on merge", and (c) it runs the risk that the maintainer responsible for ultimately merging the series ends up actually merging the incremental (=3D "fixup") patches in isolation (without squashing them). > > **OPEN**: How should minimum review period be set? Labels? Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require reviewers to start providing their feedback within one week. One thing that I find important is that a maintainer can signal "I got your work in my queue, but I may need more time". And a special case of that are automated out-of-office responses. I think they are very helpful (when a contributor feels they are bottlenecked on review), but I'm not sure how one can configure that via github. I certainly would not share my out-of-office times with github. (I set the start/end dates in my email infrastructure, at the moment, but the out-of-office messages it sends do not contain the dates either, on purpose.) > > ## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Steps > * Receive an event that a new pull request was opened > * Evaluate the files modified by the entire pull request and each comm= it in > the pull request and cross references against `Maintainters.txt` in = the root s/cross references/cross reference them/ ? > of the repository to assign maintainers/reviewers to the pull reques= t and > each commit in the pull request. Individual commit assignments are p= erformed > by adding a commit comment of the following form: > > [CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney > > * Generate and sends git patch review emails to the email archive. Em= ails s/sends/send/ > are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit messages. > > * If the author/developer performs a forced push to the branch in thei= r > personal fork of the edk2 repository, then a new set of patch review= emails > with patch series Vx is sent to the email archive and any Cc: tags i= n commit > messages. > > * Receive events associated with all code review activities and genera= te > and send emails to the email archive that shows all review comments = and > all responses closely matching the email contents seen in the curren= t email > based code review process. > > * Generate and send email when pull request is merged or closed. > > ## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps > > * Make sure GitHub configuration is setup to 'Watch' the repositories = that > you have maintainer ship or review responsibilities and that email s/maintainer ship/maintainership/ > notifications from GitHub are enabled. This enables email notificat= ions > when a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a pull request and individ= ual > commits. > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2F= help.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fmanaging-subscriptions-and-notifications-on= -github%2Fconfiguring-notifications&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40mi= crosoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd0= 11db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=3DOlkiyymcQi39P8%2FOJZG4yjh4h= %2FHerkHBe5bCSQQFLOU%3D&reserved=3D0 > > * Subscribe to the email archive associated with the TianoCore GitHub = Email > Archive Webhook Service. > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2F= www.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&data=3D= 02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%= 7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata= =3Dq0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=3D0 Important: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept list, for now. Once we're ready to switch over, I'll file an internal ticket at RH to either rename the list, or (which is probably better) to create a new list (no "-poc" suffix). The second option seems more useful because then the webhook development / bugfixing (if any) could perhaps occur in parallel to the normal edk2 workflow. > > * Review pull requests and commits assigned by the TianoCore GitHub Em= ail > Archive Webhook Service and use the GitHub web UI to provide all rev= iew > feedback. > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2F= help.github.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests= %2Freviewing-changes-in-pull-requests&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40= microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c= d011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=3D51Ljm3wUbBTWT8hcaBD1ZQznS= ROvAQqnoTzQmD6K%2FLY%3D&reserved=3D0 > > * Wait for Author/Developer to respond to all feedback and add commits= with > code changes as needed to resolve all feedback. This step may be re= peated > if the developer/author need to produce multiple versions of the pat= ch > series to address all feedback. (same question about the incremental fixup patches as above) > > * Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Teste= d-by > responses on individual commits. Or add Series-reviewed-by, Series-= acked-by, > or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire pull request. > > * Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commit messages in the pull= request. > > * Perform final review of patches and commit message tags. If there a= re not > issues, set the `push` label to run final set of CI checks and auto = merge > the pull request into master. > > # Maintainers.txt Format Changes > > Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers at the end of M: and R: = lines > in []. For example: > > M: Michael D Kinney > [mdkinney] > > # TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service > > Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull request based on assignment= s > documented in Maintainers.txt and generates an email archive of all pull= request > and code review activities. s/generates/generate/ (or s/Assign/Assigns/) > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgith= ub.com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email-archive-webhook&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.ba= rkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141a= f91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=3D7CJNJMEXrxoynjav= mEwjzUyRbfNUIZ3FEG4kDRXvhI4%3D&reserved=3D0 > > # Email Archive Subscription Service > > The emails are being delivered to the following RedHat email subscriptio= n > service. Please subscribe to receive the emails and to be able to view = the > email archives. > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.= redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&data=3D02%7= C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72= f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&sdata=3Dq0I= uvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&reserved=3D0 > > The email archives are at this link: > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.= redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2Findex.html&= ;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f= 5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&= ;sdata=3DnedUfkmMmI5T6GtAxQCW4q6xt38%2FezeDYmfq6cpRD0M%3D&reserved=3D0<= https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.red= hat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2Findex.html&data= =3D02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cb61ce42027c0428ab31408d7f5ebe= b5b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248265951767033&sdata= =3D78HRihY2z%2Fll0qoC05RMh8I%2Bwri9rwIwblxNBYFPecw%3D&reserved=3D0> > > The following sections show some example pull requests and code reviews = to > help review the generated emails, their contents, and threading. > > ## Email Achieve Thread View > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.= redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthr= ead.html%2300289&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1= f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63= 7248227586678640&sdata=3DGtrEudehfXiSU6ZwH2zKO35CPPPVk0ctZIzhkpI6DkE%3D= &reserved=3D0 > > ## Example patch series with 1 patch > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.= redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthr= ead.html%2300340&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1= f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63= 7248227586678640&sdata=3DZGpI8%2BzIA9OMFm3pSCc2DQ4F5ZxtDSAXtjdFjD%2BY3N= A%3D&reserved=3D0 > > ## Example patch series with < 10 patches > > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fww= w.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fm= sg00289.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&sdata=3DJyaUyvYfZD7b%2F2wN%2BpS%2B68b%2BwyKoZ3Rba4ol%2Fyah= QVU%3D&reserved=3D0 > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fww= w.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fm= sg00030.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&sdata=3DbQHIJIQq4Pri8iK3vPxMDMWz%2BKtXcyuPdhr8y7gFpXA%3D&a= mp;reserved=3D0 > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fww= w.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fm= sg00018.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&sdata=3DuMIRGOq%2BVCOSwDzXkG4yueYS4ZJ7BWfsp3Z4%2B9lh6hE%3D= &reserved=3D0 > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fww= w.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fm= sg00008.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&sdata=3D3CBkdqDxRt4IxtECpWQdKJL%2Bf4HFqqHCXo4loxNTzAE%3D&a= mp;reserved=3D0 > > ## Example patch series with > 80 patches > > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fww= w.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fm= sg00198.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&sdata=3DfDfQnifOMzyzLMdP4xH8koKCiSj7ZiuYyrrSZXTf3d4%3D&= ;reserved=3D0 > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fww= w.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fm= sg00116.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&sdata=3DlcxA3tTna%2BdmTpcNMmPlS%2B47llMAcIEjhCEqxV7TDOc%3D= &reserved=3D0 > * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fww= w.redhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fm= sg00035.html&data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&sdata=3DCgvZ8e%2B7L4nacvRE35KqEyC%2F1CjDYP6wI10qn%2BoX39Y%= 3D&reserved=3D0 > > # Tasks to Complete > > * Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of new code review pr= ocess. > * Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2-codereview repository > * Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to be compatible with GitHub= IDs at > the end of M: and R: statements > * Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests and emails > * Determine if webhook requests must be serialized? Current POC is seri= alized. > * Make sure webhook has error handling for all unexpected events/states. > * Add logging of all events and emails to webhook The logging sounds very useful, thank you. Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the message-id of that email, if possible. > * Add admin interface to webhook > * Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7 support > > # Ideas for Future Enhancements > > * Run PatchCheck.py before assigning maintainers/reviewers. > * Add a simple check that fails if a single patch spans more than one pa= ckage. Hmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this rule. > * Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Reviewed= -by, > Series-Acked-by, Series-Tested-by made by assigned maintainers/reviewe= rs. > Once all commits have required tags, auto update commit messages in th= e > branch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push` label to run CI and a= uto > merge if all CI checks pass. Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)! Laszlo --_000_CY4PR21MB0743EB31621F1C92EF34B5F6EFBC0CY4PR21MB0743namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I feel like this process is a good compromise. It= =92s not perfect (frankly, I=92m a fan of enforced squash merges, which ca= n maintain bisectability if managed well), but it allows for rapid iteratio= n, ease of contribution, and approaches the workflow that many who have never used email to maintain a project would = be familiar with.

 

It=92s code management for the Instagram generation= , and I for one welcome our new insect overlords.

 

- Bret

 

From: Kinney, Michael D
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:43 PM
To: Bret Barkelew; devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@redh= at.com; rfc@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Req= uest based Code Review Process

 

Hi Bret,

 

This is a good point.

 

What I am proposing is the first version of the pat= ch series submitted as a pull request.  Let the community do a complet= e review of the content.  The submitter can add patches to the end of = the pull request addressing feedback and can even add patches that make changes to previous patches until all feedback= /conversations are resolved.  This keeps the conversations complete an= d the conversations will also be archived to the email archive.<= /p>

 

At this point, the developer can reformulate the pa= tch series and do forced push of V2.  Reviewers can review the cleaned= up patch series and repeat the process if there is more feedback, or move = to final approval.

 

By doing all the work on a single pull request, we = minimize the total number of pull requests in the repo.

 

An alternative approach would be to open a new pull= request for each new version of the series.  This would preserve the = GitHub conversations for each version of the pull request.  All the ea= rlier ones would be closed/abandoned, and only the final one would be closed/merged.

 

Best regards,

 

Mike

 

From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@micros= oft.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 1:10 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@redhat.com; Kinney, Michael D <= michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Req= uest based Code Review Process

 

As a counterpoint: if we force a new branch or forc= e push on every tweak, we lose the =93thread=94 of discussion on what cause= d the change, what changed as a result, and the easy hook for the original = change requester to reply directly to the change as is.

 

- Bret

 

From: Laszlo Ersek via groups.io
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:39 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D; rfc@edk2.grou= ps.io
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request= based Code Review Process

 

On 05/09/20 04:59, M= ichael D Kinney wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a proposal to change from the current email-based code review= process to
> a GitHub pull request-based code review process for all repositories = maintained
> in TianoCore.  The current email-based code review process and c= ommit message
> requirements are documented in Readme.md or Readme.rst at the root of=
> repositories along with a few Wiki pages:
>
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub= .com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FReadMe.rst&amp;data=3D02%7C01= %7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f98= 8bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&amp;sdata=3DlV= jWRLsBC3xJpyRFeDrGjFhMOzAgi2V3vsAPxj7lIDw%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub= .com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development-Process&= amp;amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e509= 5408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668= 645&amp;sdata=3DsgAhQxCpyjmzC%2FW%2BFiLLwaF2M8wscBz3k93ne25qUXs%3D&= amp;reserved=3D0
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub= .com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guid= e-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barke= lew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91= ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&amp;sdata=3DeHP9fcPMw6yjqTU= %2B%2BUZ3FZkq8jZeM1LTU6dGTzmFp4Q%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub= .com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Message-Format&a= mp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d= 7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&a= mp;amp;sdata=3Duq8G6nGyLpa7m%2F0fD2pwrcM9uixbKs6SLTge8e77M%2FY%3D&amp;r= eserved=3D0
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub= .com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FCommit-Signature-Format&= ;amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e509540= 8d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645= &amp;sdata=3DMz8dUn2L8dFwJdlo4LbaIKt2JrWE%2Fn4tBtVWenK%2F8Ck%3D&amp= ;reserved=3D0
>
> The goal is to post changes by opening a GitHub pull request and perf= orm all
> code review activity using the GitHub web interface.  This propo= sal does not
> change any licenses or commit message requirements.  It does req= uire all
> developers, maintainers, and reviewers to have GitHub accounts.
>
> One requirement that was collected from previous discussions on this = topic is
> the need for an email archive of all patches and code review activiti= es.  The
> existing GitHub features to produce an email archive were deemed insu= fficient.
> A proof of concept of a GitHub webhook has been implemented to provid= e the email
> archive service.  This email archive is read-only.  You wil= l not be able to send
> emails to this archive or reply to emails in the archive.
>
> The sections below provide more details on the proposed GitHub pull r= equest
> based code review process, details on the email archive service, and = a set of
> remaining tasks make the email archive service production quality.&nb= sp; It does not
> make sense to support both the existing email-based code review and t= he GitHub
> pull request-based code review at the same time.  Instead, this = proposal is to
> switch to the GitHub pull request-based code review and retire the em= ail based
> code review process on the same date.
>
> The edk2 repository is using GitHub pull requests today to run automa= ted
> CI checks on the code changes and allows a maintainer to set the `pus= h` label to
> request the changes to be merged if all CI checks pass.  With th= is proposal,
> once the code review is complete and the commit messages have been up= dated, the
> same pull request can be used to perform a final set of CI checks and= merge the
> changes into the master branch.
>
> I would like to collect feedback on this proposal and the email archi= ve service
> over the next two weeks with close of comments on Friday May 22, 2020= .  If all
> issues and concerns can be addressed, then I would like to see the co= mmunity
> agree to make this change as soon as all remaining tasks are complete= d.
>
> # TianoCore Repositories to enable
>
> * [edk2](https://nam06.safelink= s.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2= &amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e50= 95408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63724822758666= 8645&amp;sdata=3DJvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&amp= ;reserved=3D0)
> * [edk2-platforms](ht= tps://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co= m%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-platforms&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40mic= rosoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd01= 1db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&amp;sdata=3Dg8mgGL6B%2FRsvm3935OpZMc= tOTKUoeHGi8jPuCVKQjbI%3D&amp;reserved=3D0)
> * [edk2-non-osi](https= ://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2= Ftianocore%2Fedk2-non-osi&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsof= t.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47= %7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&amp;sdata=3D9lrEsZWOpc3wqylKs7yF%2FzxYwZs= UUamP3oUrWDWcHCc%3D&amp;reserved=3D0)
> * [edk2-test](https://nam0= 6.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianoc= ore%2Fedk2-test&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1d= cf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7= C637248227586668645&amp;sdata=3D8v205MD3HTYg3yLmGJS3SIDA5um9sVJfOa5CXVi= ZjyU%3D&amp;reserved=3D0)
> * [edk2-libc](https://nam06.= safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocor= e%2Fedk2-libc&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf= 1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6= 37248227586668645&amp;sdata=3DTzt293HJzFnGSkh1mUBew8dAsaZ4axWq2ml8UhQ%2= FSTI%3D&amp;reserved=3D0)
> * [edk2-staging](https= ://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2= Ftianocore%2Fedk2-staging&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsof= t.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47= %7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&amp;sdata=3DbcNbt7Y7KoBrcnW4fAc4jbGgJL%2B= 4lYUkVLhYNo37OiM%3D&amp;reserved=3D0)
>
> # GitHub Pull Request Code Review Process
>
> **NOTE**: All steps below use [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2F= github.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40micr= osoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011= db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&amp;sdata=3DJvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jnr3s0TOx6h= D54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&amp;reserved=3D0) as an
> example.  Several repositories are supported.
>
> ## Author/Developer Steps
>   * Create a personal fork of [edk2](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps= %3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkel= ew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91a= b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586668645&amp;sdata=3DJvbl8ypdXIi7U5Jn= r3s0TOx6hD54N55mdsbXi9sCznM%3D&amp;reserved=3D0)
>
>     https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.g= ithub.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fgetting-started-with-github%2Ffork-a-repo&amp= ;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f= 5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&= ;amp;sdata=3DumI3eqOh03qmt9YlPo33ujypu90YwImAvuxh5SlrM%2Bw%3D&amp;reser= ved=3D0
>
>   * Create a new branch from edk2/master in personal fork o= f edk2 repository.
>
>   * Add set of commits for new feature or bug fix to new br= anch.  Make sure to
>     follow the commit message format requirements= .  The only change with this
>     RFC is that the Cc: lines to maintainers/revi= ewers should **not** be added.
>     The Cc: lines are still supported, but they s= hould only be used to add
>     reviewers that do not have GitHub IDs or are = not members of TianoCore.
>
>   * Push branch with new commits to personal fork
>   * Create a pull request against TianoCore edk2/master
>
>     https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.g= ithub.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Fcre= ating-a-pull-request&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com= %7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%= 7C0%7C637248227586678640&amp;sdata=3D2GVrQy0FGwd4CCeGveh99HL3zS1ekRfAAa= KhhRiOMpU%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
>
>   * If pull request has more than 1 commit, then fill in th= e pull request title
>     and decryption information for Patch #0. = ; Do not leave defaults.

s/decryption/description/

(Because I'm assuming this will turn into a wiki article at some point.)
>
>   * Do not assign reviewers.  The webhook assigns main= tainers and reviewers to
>     the pull request and each commit in the pull = request.
>
>   * If maintainers/reviewers provide feedback that requires= changes, then make
>     add commits to the current branch with the re= quested changes.  Once all

s/make add/add/

>     changes are accepted on the current branch, r= eformulate the patch series and
>     commit comments as needed for perform a force= d push to the branch in the
>     personal fork of the edk2 repository.  T= his step may be repeated if multiple
>     versions of the patch series are required to = address all code review
>     feedback.

Do I understand correctly that this recommends the contributor first
push incremental patches on top of the series, then do a rebase
(squashing updates as necessary) and finally do a force-push, for the
next round of review?

To me as a reviewer, that's extra work. I'm used to locally comparing
the v(n) patch set to v(n+1) with git-range-diff, and/or with some
personal scripts. I wouldn't encourage incremental patches appended --
even temporarily -- to the branch, because (a) it's extra review work
(it requires me to review something that has zero chance to get into the git history as-is), and (b) it superficially resembles the
github.com-specific bad practice called "squash on merge", and (= c) it
runs the risk that the maintainer responsible for ultimately merging the series ends up actually merging the incremental (=3D "fixup") pa= tches in
isolation (without squashing them).

>
>   **OPEN**: How should minimum review period be set?  = Labels?

Not sure about the best tooling. My recommendation would be to require
reviewers to start providing their feedback within one week.

One thing that I find important is that a maintainer can signal "I go= t
your work in my queue, but I may need more time". And a special case = of
that are automated out-of-office responses. I think they are very
helpful (when a contributor feels they are bottlenecked on review), but I'm not sure how one can configure that via github. I certainly would
not share my out-of-office times with github. (I set the start/end dates in my email infrastructure, at the moment, but the out-of-office
messages it sends do not contain the dates either, on purpose.)

>
> ## TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service Steps
>   * Receive an event that a new pull request was opened
>   * Evaluate the files modified by the entire pull request = and each commit in
>     the pull request and cross references against= `Maintainters.txt` in the root

s/cross references/cross reference them/ ?

>     of the repository to assign maintainers/revie= wers to the pull request and
>     each commit in the pull request. Individual c= ommit assignments are performed
>     by adding a commit comment of the following f= orm:
>
>     [CodeReview] Review-request @mdkinney
>
>   * Generate and sends git patch review emails to the email= archive.  Emails

s/sends/send/

>     are also sent to any Cc: tags in the commit m= essages.
>
>   * If the author/developer performs a forced push to the b= ranch in their
>     personal fork of the edk2 repository, then a = new set of patch review emails
>     with patch series Vx is sent to the email arc= hive and any Cc: tags in commit
>     messages.
>
>   * Receive events associated with all code review activiti= es and generate
>     and send emails to the email archive that sho= ws all review comments and
>     all responses closely matching the email cont= ents seen in the current email
>     based code review process.
>
>   * Generate and send email when pull request is merged or = closed.
>
> ## Maintainer/Reviewer Steps
>
>   * Make sure GitHub configuration is setup to 'Watch' the = repositories that
>     you have maintainer ship or review responsibi= lities and that email

s/maintainer ship/maintainership/

>     notifications from GitHub are enabled.  = This enables email notifications
>     when a maintainer/reviewer is assigned to a p= ull request and individual
>     commits.
>
>     https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.g= ithub.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fmanaging-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-githu= b%2Fconfiguring-notifications&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40micr= osoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011= db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&amp;sdata=3DOlkiyymcQi39P8%2FOJZG4yjh= 4h%2FHerkHBe5bCSQQFLOU%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
>
>   * Subscribe to the email archive associated with the Tian= oCore GitHub Email
>     Archive Webhook Service.
>
>     https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&amp;data=3D02= %7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C= 72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&amp;sdata= = =3Dq0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&amp;reserved=3D0=

Important: as the name says ("-poc"), this is a Proof of Concept= list,
for now. Once we're ready to switch over, I'll file an internal ticket
at RH to either rename the list, or (which is probably better) to create a new list (no "-poc" suffix).

The second option seems more useful because then the webhook development / bugfixing (if any) could perhaps occur in parallel to the normal edk2 workflow.

>
>   * Review pull requests and commits assigned by the TianoC= ore GitHub Email
>     Archive Webhook Service and use the GitHub we= b UI to provide all review
>     feedback.
>
>     https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fhelp.g= ithub.com%2Fen%2Fgithub%2Fcollaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests%2Frev= iewing-changes-in-pull-requests&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40mi= crosoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd0= 11db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&amp;sdata=3D51Ljm3wUbBTWT8hcaBD1ZQz= nSROvAQqnoTzQmD6K%2FLY%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
>
>   * Wait for Author/Developer to respond to all feedback an= d add commits with
>     code changes as needed to resolve all feedbac= k.  This step may be repeated
>     if the developer/author need to produce multi= ple versions of the patch
>     series to address all feedback.

(same question about the incremental fixup patches as above)

>
>   * Once all feedback is addressed, add Reviewed-by, Acked-= by, and Tested-by
>     responses on individual commits.  Or add= Series-reviewed-by, Series-acked-by,
>     or Series-Tested-by responses to the entire p= ull request.
>
>   * Wait for Developer/Author to add tags to commit message= s in the pull request.
>
>   * Perform final review of patches and commit message tags= .  If there are not
>     issues, set the `push` label to run final set= of CI checks and auto merge
>     the pull request into master.
>
> # Maintainers.txt Format Changes
>
> Add GitHub IDs of all maintainers and reviewers at the end of M: and = R: lines
> in [].  For example:
>
>     M: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> [mdkinney]
>
> # TianoCore GitHub Email Archive Webhook Service
>
> Assign reviewers to commits in a GitHub pull request based on assignm= ents
> documented in Maintainers.txt and generates an email archive of all p= ull request
> and code review activities.

s/generates/generate/

(or s/Assign/Assigns/)

>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub= .com%2Fmdkinney%2Fedk2-email-archive-webhook&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.= barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f14= 1af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&amp;sdata=3D7CJNJMEXrx= oynjavmEwjzUyRbfNUIZ3FEG4kDRXvhI4%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
>
> # Email Archive Subscription Service
>
> The emails are being delivered to the following RedHat email subscrip= tion
> service.  Please subscribe to receive the emails and to be able = to view the
> email archives.
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc&amp;data=3D02= %7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C= 72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&amp;sdata= = =3Dq0IuvS318pEkJU2td9xX87oIm0LbSlEvOvhpyOOFrE8%3D&amp;reserved=3D0=
>
> The email archives are at this link:
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2Findex.html&a= mp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c03b544e5095408d= 7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248227586678640&a= mp;amp;sdata=3DnedUfkmMmI5T6GtAxQCW4q6xt38%2FezeDYmfq6cpRD0M%3D&amp;res= erved=3D0
>
> The following sections show some example pull requests and code revie= ws to
> help review the generated emails, their contents, and threading.
>
> ## Email Achieve Thread View
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthrea= d.html%2300289&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dc= f1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C= 637248227586678640&amp;sdata=3DGtrEudehfXiSU6ZwH2zKO35CPPPVk0ctZIzhkpI6= DkE%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
>
> ## Example patch series with 1 patch
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fthrea= d.html%2300340&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dc= f1f8c03b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C= 637248227586678640&amp;sdata=3DZGpI8%2BzIA9OMFm3pSCc2DQ4F5ZxtDSAXtjdFjD= %2BY3NA%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
>
> ## Example patch series with < 10 patches
>
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00= 289.html&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&amp;sdata=3DJyaUyvYfZD7b%2F2wN%2BpS%2B68b%2BwyKoZ3Rba4ol%2= FyahQVU%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00= 030.html&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&amp;sdata=3DbQHIJIQq4Pri8iK3vPxMDMWz%2BKtXcyuPdhr8y7gFpXA%= 3D&amp;reserved=3D0
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00= 018.html&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&amp;sdata=3DuMIRGOq%2BVCOSwDzXkG4yueYS4ZJ7BWfsp3Z4%2B9lh6h= E%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00= 008.html&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&amp;sdata=3D3CBkdqDxRt4IxtECpWQdKJL%2Bf4HFqqHCXo4loxNTzAE%= 3D&amp;reserved=3D0
>
> ## Example patch series with > 80 patches
>
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00= 198.html&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&amp;sdata=3DfDfQnifOMzyzLMdP4xH8koKCiSj7ZiuYyrrSZXTf3d4%3D= &amp;reserved=3D0
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00= 116.html&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&amp;sdata=3DlcxA3tTna%2BdmTpcNMmPlS%2B47llMAcIEjhCEqxV7TDO= c%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
> * https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.re= dhat.com%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Ftianocore-code-review-poc%2F2020-May%2Fmsg00= 035.html&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C1dcf1f8c0= 3b544e5095408d7f5e2fd56%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637248= 227586678640&amp;sdata=3DCgvZ8e%2B7L4nacvRE35KqEyC%2F1CjDYP6wI10qn%2BoX= 39Y%3D&amp;reserved=3D0
>
> # Tasks to Complete
>
> * Create edk2-codereview repository for evaluation of new code review= process.
> * Add GitHub IDs to Maintainers.txt in edk2-codereview repository
> * Update BaseTools/Scripts/GetMaintainer.py to be compatible with Git= Hub IDs at
>   the end of M: and R: statements
> * Update webhook to use Rabbit MQ to manage requests and emails
> * Determine if webhook requests must be serialized?  Current POC= is serialized.
> * Make sure webhook has error handling for all unexpected events/stat= es.
> * Add logging of all events and emails to webhook

The logging sounds very useful, thank you.

Whenever a log message relates to an email, please consider logging the message-id of that email, if possible.

> * Add admin interface to webhook
> * Deploy webhook on a production server with 24/7 support
>
> # Ideas for Future Enhancements
>
> * Run PatchCheck.py before assigning maintainers/reviewers.
> * Add a simple check that fails if a single patch spans more than one= package.

Hmmm, good idea in general, but there have been valid exceptions to this rule.

> * Monitor comments for Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, Series-Revie= wed-by,
>   Series-Acked-by, Series-Tested-by made by assigned mainta= iners/reviewers.
>   Once all commits have required tags, auto update commit m= essages in the
>   branch and wait for maintainer to set the `Push` label to= run CI and auto
>   merge if all CI checks pass.

Thank you for writing this up (and for implementing the webhook)!
Laszlo


 

 

--_000_CY4PR21MB0743EB31621F1C92EF34B5F6EFBC0CY4PR21MB0743namp_--