Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Nate DeSimone]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8034 bytes --]

Hi All,



I tend to agree with most of Laszlo's points. Specifically, that moving to pull requests will not fix the fact that maintainers are usually busy people and don't always give feedback in a punctual manner. Like Laszlo, I would also prefer that we do not squash patch series. My biggest reason for not squashing patch series is because when you put everything into a single commit, I have had to review commits with 500+ files changed. Opening git difftool on a commit like that is awful.



However, I would like to register my general endorsement for pull requests or some other web based system of code review… and I don’t have an Instagram account by the way :) Personally, I prefer Gerrit as I use it a lot with coreboot and other projects. But since we are using Github for hosting, pull requests are an easy switch and a logical choice. My main reason for being excited about pull requests mostly has to do with the amount of manual effort required to be a TianoCore maintainer right now. I have set up my email filter so that the mailing list is categorized like so:



[cid:image001.png@01D62D71.502B55E0]



Implementing the logic to parse the contents of emails to categorize them like this required me to define no less than 12 email filter rules in Microsoft Outlook, and I have to change my filtering logic every time I am added/removed from a Maintainers.txt file. I’m sure every other maintainer has spent a time separately implementing filtering logic like I have. This helps, but still for every thread, I have to go and check if one of the other maintainers has already reviewed/pushed that patch series yet, and if not review/push it. If I have ] feedback on a patch series, I have to categorize it as awaiting response from author and check up on it from time to time, sometimes I ping the author directly and remind them to send a new patch series. Implementing this state machine is a lot of manual work and it kind of feels like I’m a telephone operator in the 1950s. I greatly welcome automation here as I am sure it will increase the number of patch series I am able to review per hour.



Thanks,

Nate



-----Original Message-----
From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 AM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew@microsoft.com; devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process



On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:



> I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to allow

> for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would pursue

> with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9 PRs

> for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one.

> Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it

> had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and a

> half or so, rather than the multiple months that we’re now verging

> on.



This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with).

And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2 process to github.



Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches, moving hunks between patches).



It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a separate section to "splitting commits".



In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies.



Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal breaker with Phabricator.



The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches. It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged), and the patch count varied significantly:



v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015)

v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015)

v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015)

v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015)

v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015)



(The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open sourcing and upstreaming the *real* PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.)



The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram generation seems to be missing.





I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the following threads on the list:



* [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature

  Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700



* [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature

  Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700



I have two sets of comments:



(1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently came from multiple sources.



(1a) Review was slow and spotty.



The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted. But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this:



- v1 1/9: no feedback

- v1 2/9: 12 days after posting

- v1 3/9: 16 days after posting

- v1 4/9: no feedback

- v1 5/9: no feedback

- v1 6/9: no feedback

- v1 7/9: no feedback

- v1 8/9: no feedback

- v1 9/9: no feedback



(1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1 thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May 11th).



(1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they didn't fare too well:



- v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a

            designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting; no

            other feedback thus far

- v2 02/12: ditto

- v2 03/12: no feedback

- v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting

- v2 05/12: no feedback

- v2 06/12: no feedback

- v2 07/12: no feedback

- v2 08/12: no feedback

- v2 09/12: no feedback

- v2 10/12: no feedback

- v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer

            (yours truly), on the day of posting

- v2 12/12: no feedback



In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change with the transition to github.com.





(2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series restructuring is important.



(2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2).



(2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new library instance."



Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg.



Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order changes, and an increased patch count.



Thanks

Laszlo









[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 15040 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image001.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 2968 bytes --]

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/19/20 09:21, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:

> However, I would like to register my general endorsement for pull
> requests or some other web based system of code review... and I don't
> have an Instagram account by the way :) Personally, I prefer Gerrit as
> I use it a lot with coreboot and other projects. But since we are
> using Github for hosting, pull requests are an easy switch and a
> logical choice. My main reason for being excited about pull requests
> mostly has to do with the amount of manual effort required to be a
> TianoCore maintainer right now.

My understanding is that, at this point, we're inevitably going to
migrate the contribution/review workflow to GitHub. I believe the switch
is going to happen once the email webhook has been deemed functional and
stable enough by the community.

Digression starts:

> Implementing the logic to parse the contents of emails to categorize
> them like this required me to define no less than 12 email filter
> rules in Microsoft Outlook, and I have to change my filtering logic
> every time I am added/removed from a Maintainers.txt file.

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.

How you handle messages from then on may be a personal matter of course.
I simply tag ("star") such messages (patches / series pending my
review), and I revisit my "set of starred messages" every day (sometimes
multiple times per day).

> I'm sure every other maintainer has spent a time separately
> implementing filtering logic like I have. This helps, but still for
> every thread, I have to go and check if one of the other maintainers
> has already reviewed/pushed that patch series yet, and if not
> review/push it.

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).

> If I have feedback on a patch series, I have to categorize it as
> awaiting response from author and check up on it from time to time,
> sometimes I ping the author directly and remind them to send a new
> patch series.

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.

> Implementing this state machine is a lot of manual work and it kind of
> feels like I'm a telephone operator in the 1950s. I greatly welcome
> automation here as I am sure it will increase the number of patch
> series I am able to review per hour.

"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.)

Thanks!
Laszlo

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Sean]

Nate/Laszlo,

Regarding a squash merge workflow.  I agree it can be abused and we all 
have seen terrible examples.  But a patch series that contains 500+ file 
changes isn't really much better.  Just because it is broken into 
multiple commits doesn't mean it is the right set of commits.

Anyway a squash merge workflow works amazingly well with and is 
optimized for a web based review and PR processes.  It allows a user to 
respond to changes, fix issues, learn thru the PR process, all while 
keeping complete track of the progression.  Then once all "status" 
checks and reviews are complete, it is squashed into a neat commit for 
mainline, containing only the relevant data in the message.

So, the ask is that we don't exclude squash merge workflows.  Those 
reviewing the PR can decide what is appropriate for the PR content 
submitted.  Just as you would request changes to the contents (or 
ordering) of a commit in a series, if the reviewers don't agree that the 
PR contents should be in a single commit then obviously it shouldn't be 
squashed to one.

Contributions like spelling fixes, typos, minor bug fixes, documentation 
additions/fixes, etc all are great examples of PRs that can easily 
leverage squash merges and this workflow significantly lowers the burden 
of the contribution and review process.  This workflow is also are much 
easier for casual or first time contributors.

I don't exactly know how we would enable this but I assume we could 
leverage tags or make it clear in the PR description.  First step is to 
get alignment that a squash merge workflow, while not appropriate for 
all contributions, is not something to be excluded.

Thanks
Sean



On 5/19/2020 12:21 AM, Nate DeSimone wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree with most of Laszlo's points. Specifically, that moving to pull requests will not fix the fact that maintainers are usually busy people and don't always give feedback in a punctual manner. Like Laszlo, I would also prefer that we do not squash patch series. My biggest reason for not squashing patch series is because when you put everything into a single commit, I have had to review commits with 500+ files changed. Opening git difftool on a commit like that is awful.
> 
> 
> 
> However, I would like to register my general endorsement for pull requests or some other web based system of code review… and I don’t have an Instagram account by the way :) Personally, I prefer Gerrit as I use it a lot with coreboot and other projects. But since we are using Github for hosting, pull requests are an easy switch and a logical choice. My main reason for being excited about pull requests mostly has to do with the amount of manual effort required to be a TianoCore maintainer right now. I have set up my email filter so that the mailing list is categorized like so:
> 
> 
> 
> [cid:image001.png@01D62D71.502B55E0]
> 
> 
> 
> Implementing the logic to parse the contents of emails to categorize them like this required me to define no less than 12 email filter rules in Microsoft Outlook, and I have to change my filtering logic every time I am added/removed from a Maintainers.txt file. I’m sure every other maintainer has spent a time separately implementing filtering logic like I have. This helps, but still for every thread, I have to go and check if one of the other maintainers has already reviewed/pushed that patch series yet, and if not review/push it. If I have ] feedback on a patch series, I have to categorize it as awaiting response from author and check up on it from time to time, sometimes I ping the author directly and remind them to send a new patch series. Implementing this state machine is a lot of manual work and it kind of feels like I’m a telephone operator in the 1950s. I greatly welcome automation here as I am sure it will increase the number of patch series I am able to review per hour.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nate
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 AM
> To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew@microsoft.com; devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process
> 
> 
> 
> On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to allow
> 
>> for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would pursue
> 
>> with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9 PRs
> 
>> for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one.
> 
>> Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it
> 
>> had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and a
> 
>> half or so, rather than the multiple months that we’re now verging
> 
>> on.
> 
> 
> 
> This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with).
> 
> And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2 process to github.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches, moving hunks between patches).
> 
> 
> 
> It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a separate section to "splitting commits".
> 
> 
> 
> In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies.
> 
> 
> 
> Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal breaker with Phabricator.
> 
> 
> 
> The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches. It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged), and the patch count varied significantly:
> 
> 
> 
> v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015)
> 
> v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015)
> 
> v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015)
> 
> v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015)
> 
> v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015)
> 
> 
> 
> (The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open sourcing and upstreaming the *real* PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.)
> 
> 
> 
> The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram generation seems to be missing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the following threads on the list:
> 
> 
> 
> * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> 
>    Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700
> 
> 
> 
> * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> 
>    Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700
> 
> 
> 
> I have two sets of comments:
> 
> 
> 
> (1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently came from multiple sources.
> 
> 
> 
> (1a) Review was slow and spotty.
> 
> 
> 
> The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted. But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this:
> 
> 
> 
> - v1 1/9: no feedback
> 
> - v1 2/9: 12 days after posting
> 
> - v1 3/9: 16 days after posting
> 
> - v1 4/9: no feedback
> 
> - v1 5/9: no feedback
> 
> - v1 6/9: no feedback
> 
> - v1 7/9: no feedback
> 
> - v1 8/9: no feedback
> 
> - v1 9/9: no feedback
> 
> 
> 
> (1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1 thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May 11th).
> 
> 
> 
> (1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they didn't fare too well:
> 
> 
> 
> - v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a
> 
>              designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting; no
> 
>              other feedback thus far
> 
> - v2 02/12: ditto
> 
> - v2 03/12: no feedback
> 
> - v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting
> 
> - v2 05/12: no feedback
> 
> - v2 06/12: no feedback
> 
> - v2 07/12: no feedback
> 
> - v2 08/12: no feedback
> 
> - v2 09/12: no feedback
> 
> - v2 10/12: no feedback
> 
> - v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer
> 
>              (yours truly), on the day of posting
> 
> - v2 12/12: no feedback
> 
> 
> 
> In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change with the transition to github.com.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series restructuring is important.
> 
> 
> 
> (2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2).
> 
> 
> 
> (2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new library instance."
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order changes, and an increased patch count.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Laszlo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Nate DeSimone]

> 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
> 
> 
> 

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Nate DeSimone]

Hi Sean,

My recent spelling fix patch series is a good example of why this is a bad idea actually:

https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/59779
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/59780
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/59781
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/59782
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/59783
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/59784
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/59785

Notice that I split along package boundaries, because the maintainers for each package is a different set of people. If my patch series was squashed at merge time... how do I know who reviewed what? If the commit set is not correct.. I tend to say so in my feedback :). The only sane way to squash this series would be to have a human re-write all the commit messages, which I am against.

Generally those that prefer an easily bisectable history have such preference mostly due to the usage of validators that immediately resort bisecting as a method to root cause an issue since they tend to not understand the code very well. Edk2 already has 12 years of non-bisectable history, so this method is going to be ineffective anyway.

With regard to sending squashed commits, I understand that those who are new may have difficulty sending a properly formatted patch series, but frankly attempting to shield them from having to learn I am strongly against. I suggest that Microsoft invest in its human capital similar to how Intel does. If you cannot figure out how to send a properly formatted patch series... then do your work on the internal codebase (or perhaps MU.) Within the Intel, having the skillset to contribute to TianoCore is considered a mark of prestige, and thus needs to be earned.

TLDR, I will reject squashed commits on any packages that I maintain.

Thanks,
Nate

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sean
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:54 AM
> To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; Desimone, Nathaniel L
> <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; lersek@redhat.com;
> bret.barkelew@microsoft.com; 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
> 
> Nate/Laszlo,
> 
> Regarding a squash merge workflow.  I agree it can be abused and we all
> have seen terrible examples.  But a patch series that contains 500+ file
> changes isn't really much better.  Just because it is broken into multiple
> commits doesn't mean it is the right set of commits.
> 
> Anyway a squash merge workflow works amazingly well with and is
> optimized for a web based review and PR processes.  It allows a user to
> respond to changes, fix issues, learn thru the PR process, all while keeping
> complete track of the progression.  Then once all "status"
> checks and reviews are complete, it is squashed into a neat commit for
> mainline, containing only the relevant data in the message.
> 
> So, the ask is that we don't exclude squash merge workflows.  Those
> reviewing the PR can decide what is appropriate for the PR content
> submitted.  Just as you would request changes to the contents (or
> ordering) of a commit in a series, if the reviewers don't agree that the PR
> contents should be in a single commit then obviously it shouldn't be
> squashed to one.
> 
> Contributions like spelling fixes, typos, minor bug fixes, documentation
> additions/fixes, etc all are great examples of PRs that can easily leverage
> squash merges and this workflow significantly lowers the burden of the
> contribution and review process.  This workflow is also are much easier for
> casual or first time contributors.
> 
> I don't exactly know how we would enable this but I assume we could
> leverage tags or make it clear in the PR description.  First step is to get
> alignment that a squash merge workflow, while not appropriate for all
> contributions, is not something to be excluded.
> 
> Thanks
> Sean
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/19/2020 12:21 AM, Nate DeSimone wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I tend to agree with most of Laszlo's points. Specifically, that moving to pull
> requests will not fix the fact that maintainers are usually busy people and
> don't always give feedback in a punctual manner. Like Laszlo, I would also
> prefer that we do not squash patch series. My biggest reason for not
> squashing patch series is because when you put everything into a single
> commit, I have had to review commits with 500+ files changed. Opening git
> difftool on a commit like that is awful.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, I would like to register my general endorsement for pull requests
> or some other web based system of code review… and I don’t have an
> Instagram account by the way :) Personally, I prefer Gerrit as I use it a lot with
> coreboot and other projects. But since we are using Github for hosting, pull
> requests are an easy switch and a logical choice. My main reason for being
> excited about pull requests mostly has to do with the amount of manual
> effort required to be a TianoCore maintainer right now. I have set up my
> email filter so that the mailing list is categorized like so:
> >
> >
> >
> > [cid:image001.png@01D62D71.502B55E0]
> >
> >
> >
> > Implementing the logic to parse the contents of emails to categorize them
> like this required me to define no less than 12 email filter rules in Microsoft
> Outlook, and I have to change my filtering logic every time I am
> added/removed from a Maintainers.txt file. I’m sure every other maintainer
> has spent a time separately implementing filtering logic like I have. This helps,
> but still for every thread, I have to go and check if one of the other
> maintainers has already reviewed/pushed that patch series yet, and if not
> review/push it. If I have ] feedback on a patch series, I have to categorize it
> as awaiting response from author and check up on it from time to time,
> sometimes I ping the author directly and remind them to send a new patch
> series. Implementing this state machine is a lot of manual work and it kind of
> feels like I’m a telephone operator in the 1950s. I greatly welcome
> automation here as I am sure it will increase the number of patch series I am
> able to review per hour.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nate
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo
> > Ersek
> > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 AM
> > To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew@microsoft.com;
> > devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull
> > Request based Code Review Process
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to
> >> allow
> >
> >> for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would
> >> pursue
> >
> >> with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9
> >> PRs
> >
> >> for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one.
> >
> >> Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it
> >
> >> had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and
> >> a
> >
> >> half or so, rather than the multiple months that we’re now verging
> >
> >> on.
> >
> >
> >
> > This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or
> from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with).
> >
> > And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2
> process to github.
> >
> >
> >
> > Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on
> individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the
> patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches,
> moving hunks between patches).
> >
> >
> >
> > It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while
> reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a
> separate section to "splitting commits".
> >
> >
> >
> > In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the
> "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it
> only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported
> setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series
> would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal
> breaker with Phabricator.
> >
> >
> >
> > The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches.
> It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged),
> and the patch count varied significantly:
> >
> >
> >
> > v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015)
> >
> > v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015)
> >
> > v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015)
> >
> > v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015)
> >
> > v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015)
> >
> >
> >
> > (The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open
> > sourcing and upstreaming the *real* PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was
> > huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated
> > 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that
> complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things
> simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram
> generation seems to be missing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the
> following threads on the list:
> >
> >
> >
> > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> >
> >    Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> >
> >    Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > I have two sets of comments:
> >
> >
> >
> > (1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been
> posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently
> came from multiple sources.
> >
> >
> >
> > (1a) Review was slow and spotty.
> >
> >
> >
> > The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted.
> But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this:
> >
> >
> >
> > - v1 1/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 2/9: 12 days after posting
> >
> > - v1 3/9: 16 days after posting
> >
> > - v1 4/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 5/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 6/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 7/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 8/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 9/9: no feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > (1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1
> thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May
> 11th).
> >
> >
> >
> > (1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the
> day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they
> didn't fare too well:
> >
> >
> >
> > - v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a
> >
> >              designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting;
> > no
> >
> >              other feedback thus far
> >
> > - v2 02/12: ditto
> >
> > - v2 03/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting
> >
> > - v2 05/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 06/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 07/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 08/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 09/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 10/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer
> >
> >              (yours truly), on the day of posting
> >
> > - v2 12/12: no feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If
> reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change
> with the transition to github.com.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series
> restructuring is important.
> >
> >
> >
> > (2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2).
> >
> >
> >
> > (2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build
> pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library
> instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new
> library instance."
> >
> >
> >
> > Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and
> maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order
> changes, and an increased patch count.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Laszlo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16075 bytes --]

Nate, I believe you missed Sean’s point.

Each one of those packages should have been a separate PR.
Ergo, no information would have been lost in the squash.

Also, it’s not so much that we *can’t* learn. It’s that we choose not to. Around here, it’s a mark of prestige to not open doors with your face if it seems like there’s a better way. Makes it easier to focus on the work.

- Bret

From: Nate DeSimone via groups.io<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone=intel.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:02 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Hi Sean,

My recent spelling fix patch series is a good example of why this is a bad idea actually:

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59779&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=fVz16E37%2BwW5pSgRxI45K7nWPDlIoS0HuI8UCGmEwjY%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59780&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=4q0lC1BSlSoQ3p0HGWwlph09HTjgJRo4nTO2Qx59%2Fjc%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59781&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=XQVSwPMXdpDJXj9nkuvq2fenwhNt6HGGZXsJwH5Bu8E%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59782&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=kCULGBc6%2Bifcn3cnPTV1odHI1ZUxuWQePN3POKKS3SM%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59783&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=SCOhUMdNXHIymGLaw9z3JTh%2Fe2BfaJaAyEC99EkG%2Fvg%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59784&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=epET6Wk30bIHQCvEDFLkeHEfmm9tzlxRrJ%2FQAuEfQFs%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59785&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=N8T7HjerJVvyGg94yMWjLm%2Fw7WDdXOdby1JpOYlPeVc%3D&amp;reserved=0

Notice that I split along package boundaries, because the maintainers for each package is a different set of people. If my patch series was squashed at merge time... how do I know who reviewed what? If the commit set is not correct.. I tend to say so in my feedback :). The only sane way to squash this series would be to have a human re-write all the commit messages, which I am against.

Generally those that prefer an easily bisectable history have such preference mostly due to the usage of validators that immediately resort bisecting as a method to root cause an issue since they tend to not understand the code very well. Edk2 already has 12 years of non-bisectable history, so this method is going to be ineffective anyway.

With regard to sending squashed commits, I understand that those who are new may have difficulty sending a properly formatted patch series, but frankly attempting to shield them from having to learn I am strongly against. I suggest that Microsoft invest in its human capital similar to how Intel does. If you cannot figure out how to send a properly formatted patch series... then do your work on the internal codebase (or perhaps MU.) Within the Intel, having the skillset to contribute to TianoCore is considered a mark of prestige, and thus needs to be earned.

TLDR, I will reject squashed commits on any packages that I maintain.

Thanks,
Nate

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sean
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:54 AM
> To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; Desimone, Nathaniel L
> <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; lersek@redhat.com;
> bret.barkelew@microsoft.com; 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
>
> Nate/Laszlo,
>
> Regarding a squash merge workflow.  I agree it can be abused and we all
> have seen terrible examples.  But a patch series that contains 500+ file
> changes isn't really much better.  Just because it is broken into multiple
> commits doesn't mean it is the right set of commits.
>
> Anyway a squash merge workflow works amazingly well with and is
> optimized for a web based review and PR processes.  It allows a user to
> respond to changes, fix issues, learn thru the PR process, all while keeping
> complete track of the progression.  Then once all "status"
> checks and reviews are complete, it is squashed into a neat commit for
> mainline, containing only the relevant data in the message.
>
> So, the ask is that we don't exclude squash merge workflows.  Those
> reviewing the PR can decide what is appropriate for the PR content
> submitted.  Just as you would request changes to the contents (or
> ordering) of a commit in a series, if the reviewers don't agree that the PR
> contents should be in a single commit then obviously it shouldn't be
> squashed to one.
>
> Contributions like spelling fixes, typos, minor bug fixes, documentation
> additions/fixes, etc all are great examples of PRs that can easily leverage
> squash merges and this workflow significantly lowers the burden of the
> contribution and review process.  This workflow is also are much easier for
> casual or first time contributors.
>
> I don't exactly know how we would enable this but I assume we could
> leverage tags or make it clear in the PR description.  First step is to get
> alignment that a squash merge workflow, while not appropriate for all
> contributions, is not something to be excluded.
>
> Thanks
> Sean
>
>
>
> On 5/19/2020 12:21 AM, Nate DeSimone wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I tend to agree with most of Laszlo's points. Specifically, that moving to pull
> requests will not fix the fact that maintainers are usually busy people and
> don't always give feedback in a punctual manner. Like Laszlo, I would also
> prefer that we do not squash patch series. My biggest reason for not
> squashing patch series is because when you put everything into a single
> commit, I have had to review commits with 500+ files changed. Opening git
> difftool on a commit like that is awful.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, I would like to register my general endorsement for pull requests
> or some other web based system of code review… and I don’t have an
> Instagram account by the way :) Personally, I prefer Gerrit as I use it a lot with
> coreboot and other projects. But since we are using Github for hosting, pull
> requests are an easy switch and a logical choice. My main reason for being
> excited about pull requests mostly has to do with the amount of manual
> effort required to be a TianoCore maintainer right now. I have set up my
> email filter so that the mailing list is categorized like so:
> >
> >
> >
> > [cid:image001.png@01D62D71.502B55E0]
> >
> >
> >
> > Implementing the logic to parse the contents of emails to categorize them
> like this required me to define no less than 12 email filter rules in Microsoft
> Outlook, and I have to change my filtering logic every time I am
> added/removed from a Maintainers.txt file. I’m sure every other maintainer
> has spent a time separately implementing filtering logic like I have. This helps,
> but still for every thread, I have to go and check if one of the other
> maintainers has already reviewed/pushed that patch series yet, and if not
> review/push it. If I have ] feedback on a patch series, I have to categorize it
> as awaiting response from author and check up on it from time to time,
> sometimes I ping the author directly and remind them to send a new patch
> series. Implementing this state machine is a lot of manual work and it kind of
> feels like I’m a telephone operator in the 1950s. I greatly welcome
> automation here as I am sure it will increase the number of patch series I am
> able to review per hour.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nate
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo
> > Ersek
> > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 AM
> > To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew@microsoft.com;
> > devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull
> > Request based Code Review Process
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to
> >> allow
> >
> >> for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would
> >> pursue
> >
> >> with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9
> >> PRs
> >
> >> for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one.
> >
> >> Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it
> >
> >> had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and
> >> a
> >
> >> half or so, rather than the multiple months that we’re now verging
> >
> >> on.
> >
> >
> >
> > This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or
> from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with).
> >
> > And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2
> process to github.
> >
> >
> >
> > Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on
> individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the
> patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches,
> moving hunks between patches).
> >
> >
> >
> > It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while
> reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a
> separate section to "splitting commits".
> >
> >
> >
> > In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the
> "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it
> only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported
> setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series
> would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal
> breaker with Phabricator.
> >
> >
> >
> > The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches.
> It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged),
> and the patch count varied significantly:
> >
> >
> >
> > v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015)
> >
> > v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015)
> >
> > v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015)
> >
> > v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015)
> >
> > v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015)
> >
> >
> >
> > (The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open
> > sourcing and upstreaming the *real* PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was
> > huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated
> > 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that
> complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things
> simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram
> generation seems to be missing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the
> following threads on the list:
> >
> >
> >
> > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> >
> >    Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> >
> >    Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > I have two sets of comments:
> >
> >
> >
> > (1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been
> posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently
> came from multiple sources.
> >
> >
> >
> > (1a) Review was slow and spotty.
> >
> >
> >
> > The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted.
> But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this:
> >
> >
> >
> > - v1 1/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 2/9: 12 days after posting
> >
> > - v1 3/9: 16 days after posting
> >
> > - v1 4/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 5/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 6/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 7/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 8/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 9/9: no feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > (1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1
> thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May
> 11th).
> >
> >
> >
> > (1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the
> day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they
> didn't fare too well:
> >
> >
> >
> > - v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a
> >
> >              designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting;
> > no
> >
> >              other feedback thus far
> >
> > - v2 02/12: ditto
> >
> > - v2 03/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting
> >
> > - v2 05/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 06/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 07/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 08/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 09/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 10/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer
> >
> >              (yours truly), on the day of posting
> >
> > - v2 12/12: no feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If
> reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change
> with the transition to github.com.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series
> restructuring is important.
> >
> >
> >
> > (2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2).
> >
> >
> >
> > (2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build
> pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library
> instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new
> library instance."
> >
> >
> >
> > Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and
> maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order
> changes, and an increased patch count.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Laszlo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>





[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 24433 bytes --]

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Nate DeSimone]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 17285 bytes --]

Hi Bret,

I believe you missed my point. I don’t want my patch series to be merged piece by piece; I want it merged all at once, in the order that I specified.

I tend to agree with Laszlo that you are choosing not to learn how to use Git properly. Commit early, commit often, perfect later, publish once is the Git best practice. You should not hide the sausage making, which is exactly what you are proposing. I find it unfortunate that you consider refusing to learn GIt best practices a mark of prestige.

Thanks,
Nate

From: <devel@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of "Bret Barkelew via groups.io" <bret.barkelew=microsoft.com@groups.io>
Reply-To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>, "bret.barkelew@microsoft.com" <bret.barkelew@microsoft.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 12:35 PM
To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>, "Desimone, Nathaniel L" <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>, "spbrogan@outlook.com" <spbrogan@outlook.com>, "rfc@edk2.groups.io" <rfc@edk2.groups.io>, "lersek@redhat.com" <lersek@redhat.com>, "Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Nate, I believe you missed Sean’s point.

Each one of those packages should have been a separate PR.
Ergo, no information would have been lost in the squash.

Also, it’s not so much that we *can’t* learn. It’s that we choose not to. Around here, it’s a mark of prestige to not open doors with your face if it seems like there’s a better way. Makes it easier to focus on the work.

- Bret

From: Nate DeSimone via groups.io<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone=intel.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:02 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Hi Sean,

My recent spelling fix patch series is a good example of why this is a bad idea actually:

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59779&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=fVz16E37%2BwW5pSgRxI45K7nWPDlIoS0HuI8UCGmEwjY%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59780&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=4q0lC1BSlSoQ3p0HGWwlph09HTjgJRo4nTO2Qx59%2Fjc%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59781&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=XQVSwPMXdpDJXj9nkuvq2fenwhNt6HGGZXsJwH5Bu8E%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59782&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=kCULGBc6%2Bifcn3cnPTV1odHI1ZUxuWQePN3POKKS3SM%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59783&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=SCOhUMdNXHIymGLaw9z3JTh%2Fe2BfaJaAyEC99EkG%2Fvg%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59784&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=epET6Wk30bIHQCvEDFLkeHEfmm9tzlxRrJ%2FQAuEfQFs%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59785&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=N8T7HjerJVvyGg94yMWjLm%2Fw7WDdXOdby1JpOYlPeVc%3D&amp;reserved=0

Notice that I split along package boundaries, because the maintainers for each package is a different set of people. If my patch series was squashed at merge time... how do I know who reviewed what? If the commit set is not correct.. I tend to say so in my feedback :). The only sane way to squash this series would be to have a human re-write all the commit messages, which I am against.

Generally those that prefer an easily bisectable history have such preference mostly due to the usage of validators that immediately resort bisecting as a method to root cause an issue since they tend to not understand the code very well. Edk2 already has 12 years of non-bisectable history, so this method is going to be ineffective anyway.

With regard to sending squashed commits, I understand that those who are new may have difficulty sending a properly formatted patch series, but frankly attempting to shield them from having to learn I am strongly against. I suggest that Microsoft invest in its human capital similar to how Intel does. If you cannot figure out how to send a properly formatted patch series... then do your work on the internal codebase (or perhaps MU.) Within the Intel, having the skillset to contribute to TianoCore is considered a mark of prestige, and thus needs to be earned.

TLDR, I will reject squashed commits on any packages that I maintain.

Thanks,
Nate

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sean
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:54 AM
> To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; Desimone, Nathaniel L
> <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; lersek@redhat.com;
> bret.barkelew@microsoft.com; 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
>
> Nate/Laszlo,
>
> Regarding a squash merge workflow.  I agree it can be abused and we all
> have seen terrible examples.  But a patch series that contains 500+ file
> changes isn't really much better.  Just because it is broken into multiple
> commits doesn't mean it is the right set of commits.
>
> Anyway a squash merge workflow works amazingly well with and is
> optimized for a web based review and PR processes.  It allows a user to
> respond to changes, fix issues, learn thru the PR process, all while keeping
> complete track of the progression.  Then once all "status"
> checks and reviews are complete, it is squashed into a neat commit for
> mainline, containing only the relevant data in the message.
>
> So, the ask is that we don't exclude squash merge workflows.  Those
> reviewing the PR can decide what is appropriate for the PR content
> submitted.  Just as you would request changes to the contents (or
> ordering) of a commit in a series, if the reviewers don't agree that the PR
> contents should be in a single commit then obviously it shouldn't be
> squashed to one.
>
> Contributions like spelling fixes, typos, minor bug fixes, documentation
> additions/fixes, etc all are great examples of PRs that can easily leverage
> squash merges and this workflow significantly lowers the burden of the
> contribution and review process.  This workflow is also are much easier for
> casual or first time contributors.
>
> I don't exactly know how we would enable this but I assume we could
> leverage tags or make it clear in the PR description.  First step is to get
> alignment that a squash merge workflow, while not appropriate for all
> contributions, is not something to be excluded.
>
> Thanks
> Sean
>
>
>
> On 5/19/2020 12:21 AM, Nate DeSimone wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I tend to agree with most of Laszlo's points. Specifically, that moving to pull
> requests will not fix the fact that maintainers are usually busy people and
> don't always give feedback in a punctual manner. Like Laszlo, I would also
> prefer that we do not squash patch series. My biggest reason for not
> squashing patch series is because when you put everything into a single
> commit, I have had to review commits with 500+ files changed. Opening git
> difftool on a commit like that is awful.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, I would like to register my general endorsement for pull requests
> or some other web based system of code review… and I don’t have an
> Instagram account by the way :) Personally, I prefer Gerrit as I use it a lot with
> coreboot and other projects. But since we are using Github for hosting, pull
> requests are an easy switch and a logical choice. My main reason for being
> excited about pull requests mostly has to do with the amount of manual
> effort required to be a TianoCore maintainer right now. I have set up my
> email filter so that the mailing list is categorized like so:
> >
> >
> >
> > [cid:image001.png@01D62D71.502B55E0]
> >
> >
> >
> > Implementing the logic to parse the contents of emails to categorize them
> like this required me to define no less than 12 email filter rules in Microsoft
> Outlook, and I have to change my filtering logic every time I am
> added/removed from a Maintainers.txt file. I’m sure every other maintainer
> has spent a time separately implementing filtering logic like I have. This helps,
> but still for every thread, I have to go and check if one of the other
> maintainers has already reviewed/pushed that patch series yet, and if not
> review/push it. If I have ] feedback on a patch series, I have to categorize it
> as awaiting response from author and check up on it from time to time,
> sometimes I ping the author directly and remind them to send a new patch
> series. Implementing this state machine is a lot of manual work and it kind of
> feels like I’m a telephone operator in the 1950s. I greatly welcome
> automation here as I am sure it will increase the number of patch series I am
> able to review per hour.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nate
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo
> > Ersek
> > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 AM
> > To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew@microsoft.com;
> > devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull
> > Request based Code Review Process
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to
> >> allow
> >
> >> for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would
> >> pursue
> >
> >> with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9
> >> PRs
> >
> >> for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one.
> >
> >> Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it
> >
> >> had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and
> >> a
> >
> >> half or so, rather than the multiple months that we’re now verging
> >
> >> on.
> >
> >
> >
> > This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or
> from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with).
> >
> > And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2
> process to github.
> >
> >
> >
> > Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on
> individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the
> patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches,
> moving hunks between patches).
> >
> >
> >
> > It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while
> reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a
> separate section to "splitting commits".
> >
> >
> >
> > In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the
> "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it
> only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported
> setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series
> would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal
> breaker with Phabricator.
> >
> >
> >
> > The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches.
> It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged),
> and the patch count varied significantly:
> >
> >
> >
> > v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015)
> >
> > v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015)
> >
> > v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015)
> >
> > v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015)
> >
> > v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015)
> >
> >
> >
> > (The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open
> > sourcing and upstreaming the *real* PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was
> > huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated
> > 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that
> complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things
> simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram
> generation seems to be missing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the
> following threads on the list:
> >
> >
> >
> > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> >
> >    Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> >
> >    Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > I have two sets of comments:
> >
> >
> >
> > (1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been
> posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently
> came from multiple sources.
> >
> >
> >
> > (1a) Review was slow and spotty.
> >
> >
> >
> > The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted.
> But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this:
> >
> >
> >
> > - v1 1/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 2/9: 12 days after posting
> >
> > - v1 3/9: 16 days after posting
> >
> > - v1 4/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 5/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 6/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 7/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 8/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 9/9: no feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > (1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1
> thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May
> 11th).
> >
> >
> >
> > (1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the
> day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they
> didn't fare too well:
> >
> >
> >
> > - v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a
> >
> >              designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting;
> > no
> >
> >              other feedback thus far
> >
> > - v2 02/12: ditto
> >
> > - v2 03/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting
> >
> > - v2 05/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 06/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 07/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 08/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 09/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 10/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer
> >
> >              (yours truly), on the day of posting
> >
> > - v2 12/12: no feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If
> reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change
> with the transition to github.com.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series
> restructuring is important.
> >
> >
> >
> > (2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2).
> >
> >
> >
> > (2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build
> pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library
> instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new
> library instance."
> >
> >
> >
> > Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and
> maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order
> changes, and an increased patch count.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Laszlo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>






[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 26969 bytes --]

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 20553 bytes --]

I will honor Mike Kinney’s efforts with my vote of confidence.
I think we’re headed in the right direction, even with some of the things that I disagree with.

In my history with TianoCore, I have learned to not be so quick to say “this is fucking stupid”. Every time I’ve done that, I’ve later discovered the reasons behind it, and even come to the conclusion that the designers were quite clever.

That said, I want to contribute. And I won’t with the current system. I hope to be able to with the future system.

- Bret

From: Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:59 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Hi Bret,

I believe you missed my point. I don’t want my patch series to be merged piece by piece; I want it merged all at once, in the order that I specified.

I tend to agree with Laszlo that you are choosing not to learn how to use Git properly. Commit early, commit often, perfect later, publish once is the Git best practice. You should not hide the sausage making, which is exactly what you are proposing. I find it unfortunate that you consider refusing to learn GIt best practices a mark of prestige.

Thanks,
Nate

From: <devel@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of "Bret Barkelew via groups.io" <bret.barkelew=microsoft.com@groups.io>
Reply-To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>, "bret.barkelew@microsoft.com" <bret.barkelew@microsoft.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 12:35 PM
To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>, "Desimone, Nathaniel L" <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>, "spbrogan@outlook.com" <spbrogan@outlook.com>, "rfc@edk2.groups.io" <rfc@edk2.groups.io>, "lersek@redhat.com" <lersek@redhat.com>, "Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Nate, I believe you missed Sean’s point.

Each one of those packages should have been a separate PR.
Ergo, no information would have been lost in the squash.

Also, it’s not so much that we *can’t* learn. It’s that we choose not to. Around here, it’s a mark of prestige to not open doors with your face if it seems like there’s a better way. Makes it easier to focus on the work.

- Bret

From: Nate DeSimone via groups.io<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone=intel.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:02 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Hi Sean,

My recent spelling fix patch series is a good example of why this is a bad idea actually:

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59779&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=fVz16E37%2BwW5pSgRxI45K7nWPDlIoS0HuI8UCGmEwjY%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59779&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662145479&sdata=m66IViN3G%2BbJpBwolRXf8d3BpWQeRXs495WYxnsD85M%3D&reserved=0>
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59780&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=4q0lC1BSlSoQ3p0HGWwlph09HTjgJRo4nTO2Qx59%2Fjc%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59780&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662155477&sdata=VuYPqwcmYTrbiYdo%2B8K5irX8k6rgMgEoC2fY8eAocWA%3D&reserved=0>
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59781&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=XQVSwPMXdpDJXj9nkuvq2fenwhNt6HGGZXsJwH5Bu8E%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59781&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662165472&sdata=lMrhfWKBWKGkjNnXJJy7%2BisrugTi0J%2FUkmtnj7Vxb7Q%3D&reserved=0>
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59782&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=kCULGBc6%2Bifcn3cnPTV1odHI1ZUxuWQePN3POKKS3SM%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59782&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662165472&sdata=rltVYSQcSLG2sGP4d2awDIuWV11nYQcdxvqyPxDM4XE%3D&reserved=0>
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59783&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=SCOhUMdNXHIymGLaw9z3JTh%2Fe2BfaJaAyEC99EkG%2Fvg%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59783&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662175469&sdata=b0J%2BL4nddt3g%2FmidZO61tlkgVqrRsufOUHGjRqh1CJM%3D&reserved=0>
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59784&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=epET6Wk30bIHQCvEDFLkeHEfmm9tzlxRrJ%2FQAuEfQFs%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59784&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662185463&sdata=zhHUUmckRdY45oYIPodqP9r3Sh4Q4t%2FZYRLULOiAERs%3D&reserved=0>
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59785&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=N8T7HjerJVvyGg94yMWjLm%2Fw7WDdXOdby1JpOYlPeVc%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59785&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662185463&sdata=MNUfWJhjb1UfPFciUJ2dcu9uWQwUNkS3PJO%2BeMkFVxA%3D&reserved=0>

Notice that I split along package boundaries, because the maintainers for each package is a different set of people. If my patch series was squashed at merge time... how do I know who reviewed what? If the commit set is not correct.. I tend to say so in my feedback :). The only sane way to squash this series would be to have a human re-write all the commit messages, which I am against.

Generally those that prefer an easily bisectable history have such preference mostly due to the usage of validators that immediately resort bisecting as a method to root cause an issue since they tend to not understand the code very well. Edk2 already has 12 years of non-bisectable history, so this method is going to be ineffective anyway.

With regard to sending squashed commits, I understand that those who are new may have difficulty sending a properly formatted patch series, but frankly attempting to shield them from having to learn I am strongly against. I suggest that Microsoft invest in its human capital similar to how Intel does. If you cannot figure out how to send a properly formatted patch series... then do your work on the internal codebase (or perhaps MU.) Within the Intel, having the skillset to contribute to TianoCore is considered a mark of prestige, and thus needs to be earned.

TLDR, I will reject squashed commits on any packages that I maintain.

Thanks,
Nate

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sean
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:54 AM
> To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; Desimone, Nathaniel L
> <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; lersek@redhat.com;
> bret.barkelew@microsoft.com; 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
>
> Nate/Laszlo,
>
> Regarding a squash merge workflow.  I agree it can be abused and we all
> have seen terrible examples.  But a patch series that contains 500+ file
> changes isn't really much better.  Just because it is broken into multiple
> commits doesn't mean it is the right set of commits.
>
> Anyway a squash merge workflow works amazingly well with and is
> optimized for a web based review and PR processes.  It allows a user to
> respond to changes, fix issues, learn thru the PR process, all while keeping
> complete track of the progression.  Then once all "status"
> checks and reviews are complete, it is squashed into a neat commit for
> mainline, containing only the relevant data in the message.
>
> So, the ask is that we don't exclude squash merge workflows.  Those
> reviewing the PR can decide what is appropriate for the PR content
> submitted.  Just as you would request changes to the contents (or
> ordering) of a commit in a series, if the reviewers don't agree that the PR
> contents should be in a single commit then obviously it shouldn't be
> squashed to one.
>
> Contributions like spelling fixes, typos, minor bug fixes, documentation
> additions/fixes, etc all are great examples of PRs that can easily leverage
> squash merges and this workflow significantly lowers the burden of the
> contribution and review process.  This workflow is also are much easier for
> casual or first time contributors.
>
> I don't exactly know how we would enable this but I assume we could
> leverage tags or make it clear in the PR description.  First step is to get
> alignment that a squash merge workflow, while not appropriate for all
> contributions, is not something to be excluded.
>
> Thanks
> Sean
>
>
>
> On 5/19/2020 12:21 AM, Nate DeSimone wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I tend to agree with most of Laszlo's points. Specifically, that moving to pull
> requests will not fix the fact that maintainers are usually busy people and
> don't always give feedback in a punctual manner. Like Laszlo, I would also
> prefer that we do not squash patch series. My biggest reason for not
> squashing patch series is because when you put everything into a single
> commit, I have had to review commits with 500+ files changed. Opening git
> difftool on a commit like that is awful.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, I would like to register my general endorsement for pull requests
> or some other web based system of code review… and I don’t have an
> Instagram account by the way :) Personally, I prefer Gerrit as I use it a lot with
> coreboot and other projects. But since we are using Github for hosting, pull
> requests are an easy switch and a logical choice. My main reason for being
> excited about pull requests mostly has to do with the amount of manual
> effort required to be a TianoCore maintainer right now. I have set up my
> email filter so that the mailing list is categorized like so:
> >
> >
> >
> > [cid:image001.png@01D62D71.502B55E0]
> >
> >
> >
> > Implementing the logic to parse the contents of emails to categorize them
> like this required me to define no less than 12 email filter rules in Microsoft
> Outlook, and I have to change my filtering logic every time I am
> added/removed from a Maintainers.txt file. I’m sure every other maintainer
> has spent a time separately implementing filtering logic like I have. This helps,
> but still for every thread, I have to go and check if one of the other
> maintainers has already reviewed/pushed that patch series yet, and if not
> review/push it. If I have ] feedback on a patch series, I have to categorize it
> as awaiting response from author and check up on it from time to time,
> sometimes I ping the author directly and remind them to send a new patch
> series. Implementing this state machine is a lot of manual work and it kind of
> feels like I’m a telephone operator in the 1950s. I greatly welcome
> automation here as I am sure it will increase the number of patch series I am
> able to review per hour.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nate
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo
> > Ersek
> > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 AM
> > To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew@microsoft.com;
> > devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull
> > Request based Code Review Process
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to
> >> allow
> >
> >> for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would
> >> pursue
> >
> >> with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9
> >> PRs
> >
> >> for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one.
> >
> >> Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it
> >
> >> had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and
> >> a
> >
> >> half or so, rather than the multiple months that we’re now verging
> >
> >> on.
> >
> >
> >
> > This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or
> from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with).
> >
> > And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2
> process to github.
> >
> >
> >
> > Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on
> individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the
> patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches,
> moving hunks between patches).
> >
> >
> >
> > It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while
> reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a
> separate section to "splitting commits".
> >
> >
> >
> > In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the
> "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it
> only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported
> setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series
> would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal
> breaker with Phabricator.
> >
> >
> >
> > The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches.
> It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged),
> and the patch count varied significantly:
> >
> >
> >
> > v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015)
> >
> > v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015)
> >
> > v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015)
> >
> > v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015)
> >
> > v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015)
> >
> >
> >
> > (The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open
> > sourcing and upstreaming the *real* PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was
> > huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated
> > 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that
> complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things
> simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram
> generation seems to be missing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the
> following threads on the list:
> >
> >
> >
> > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> >
> >    Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature
> >
> >    Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > I have two sets of comments:
> >
> >
> >
> > (1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been
> posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently
> came from multiple sources.
> >
> >
> >
> > (1a) Review was slow and spotty.
> >
> >
> >
> > The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted.
> But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this:
> >
> >
> >
> > - v1 1/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 2/9: 12 days after posting
> >
> > - v1 3/9: 16 days after posting
> >
> > - v1 4/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 5/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 6/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 7/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 8/9: no feedback
> >
> > - v1 9/9: no feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > (1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1
> thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May
> 11th).
> >
> >
> >
> > (1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the
> day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they
> didn't fare too well:
> >
> >
> >
> > - v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a
> >
> >              designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting;
> > no
> >
> >              other feedback thus far
> >
> > - v2 02/12: ditto
> >
> > - v2 03/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting
> >
> > - v2 05/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 06/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 07/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 08/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 09/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 10/12: no feedback
> >
> > - v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer
> >
> >              (yours truly), on the day of posting
> >
> > - v2 12/12: no feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If
> reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change
> with the transition to github.com.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series
> restructuring is important.
> >
> >
> >
> > (2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2).
> >
> >
> >
> > (2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build
> pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library
> instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new
> library instance."
> >
> >
> >
> > Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and
> maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order
> changes, and an increased patch count.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Laszlo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>






[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 28381 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: 801BEA439D70489191D6469EEA476862.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 140 bytes --]

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

(+Leif, +Andrew)

Sean,

On 05/19/20 18:54, Sean Brogan wrote:
> Nate/Laszlo,
> 
> Regarding a squash merge workflow.  I agree it can be abused and we all
> have seen terrible examples.  But a patch series that contains 500+ file
> changes isn't really much better.  Just because it is broken into
> multiple commits doesn't mean it is the right set of commits.
> 
> Anyway a squash merge workflow works amazingly well with and is
> optimized for a web based review and PR processes.  It allows a user to
> respond to changes, fix issues, learn thru the PR process, all while
> keeping complete track of the progression.  Then once all "status"
> checks and reviews are complete, it is squashed into a neat commit for
> mainline, containing only the relevant data in the message.
> 
> So, the ask is that we don't exclude squash merge workflows.  Those
> reviewing the PR can decide what is appropriate for the PR content
> submitted.  Just as you would request changes to the contents (or
> ordering) of a commit in a series, if the reviewers don't agree that the
> PR contents should be in a single commit then obviously it shouldn't be
> squashed to one.
> 
> Contributions like spelling fixes, typos, minor bug fixes, documentation
> additions/fixes, etc all are great examples of PRs that can easily
> leverage squash merges and this workflow significantly lowers the burden
> of the contribution and review process.  This workflow is also are much
> easier for casual or first time contributors.
> 
> I don't exactly know how we would enable this but I assume we could
> leverage tags or make it clear in the PR description.  First step is to
> get alignment that a squash merge workflow, while not appropriate for
> all contributions, is not something to be excluded.

the scope for migrating the contribution & review workflows off the
mailing list and to github.com was set many months ago. That scope does
not include institutionalized changes to patch set structuring criteria.
The "git forge" evaluations that we had spent weeks/months on also
focused on how candidate systems would honor a patch series' structure;
i.e., how faithful the system would remain to the contributors' and
reviewers' shared intent, with a specific patch set.

Your proposal to "don't exclude squash merge workflows" is a trap. If we
tolerate that option -- which is obviously the sloppy, and hence more
convenient, option for some maintainers and some contributors, to the
detriment of the git history --, then almost every core maintainer will
use it as frequently as they can. In the long term, that will hurt many
consumers of the core code. It will limit the ability of people not
regularly dealing with a particular core module to file a fine-grained
bug report for that module, maybe even propose a fix. From the
regression analyst's side, if the bug report starts with "I have a
bisection log", that's already a good day. And your proposal would
destroy that option, because maintainers and people in general are
irrepairably lazy and undisciplined. We cannot post a community member
shoulder-by-shoulder with every core package reviewer/maintainer to
prevent the latter from approving a squash-on-merge, out of pure
laziness. I'm 100% sure the "option" to squash-on-merge would
*immediately* be abused for a lot more than just "typo fixes". There
isn't enough manpower to watch the watchers, so "no squash-on-merge"
needs to be a general rule.

I'm very sad that you're trying to wiggle such a crucial and intrusive
workflow change into the scope of this transition. Every time
squash-on-merge has come up over the years (regardless of this
transition), we've labeled it as one thing never to do, because it
destroys information (and/or even encourages not *creating* that
historical information in the first place, which is of course important
in reality).

Well, anyway, here's my feedback: if squash-on-merge is permitted in
edk2 or in basetools (or in any other external repository that's a hard
requirement for building edk2), that's a deal breaker for me, and I'll
hand in my resignation as a steward.

Maybe you'd consider that a win, I don't know -- but I couldn't remain a
steward with a straight face after failing to protect what I consider
one of the core values of open source / distributed development.

Thanks,
Laszlo

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Nate DeSimone]

Hi Bret,

To be completely fair, I think we are splitting hairs on details here. I think both of us are in 90% agreement, and we are both passionate enough about our work to argue that last 10% to the grave.

I totally understand the desire for bisectability by the way. TianoCore is a huge codebase, the core modules have several extremely large functions, and very little in the way of explicit documentation. It has taken me years to learn how this beast works. I think it is possible to not squash every patch series and still maintain bisectability.

For example, your VariablePolicy patch series; we definitely want the patch that adds VariablePolicyLib to MdeModulePkg merged before the patch that adds it to OvmfPkg. But if the patch series is done carefully it can still be bisectable. In fact, bisectability will only be maintained iff we merge the entire series in the order that you/Michael sent it; if OvmfPkg gets merged first, then OvmfPkg will fail to build until the MdeModulePkg patch is merged. I don't think it would be the right thing to squash the OvmfPkg & MdeModulePkg patches together, as they really are distinct steps that you took on your journey towards making the VariablePolicy sausage.

Of course, there may be other patch series that would be logical to squash, especially if the author has not been careful to maintain bisectability. For example, I think of some patch series went a little overboard and could have been done in maybe 1-2 patches instead of 8-10. I would be happy to compromise with you and say that squashes can be done in circumstances where both the maintainer and the author agree to it.

Finally, I believe I can speak for everyone here that we all welcome your contributions. I think Mike and the rest of the community are trying to adjust the process to make contributing viable for a larger set of people. But at the same time, you must realize that TianoCore isn't just going to do everything exactly the same way that Microsoft does. You and Sean are expected to compromise with the rest of the community.

Thanks,
Nate

On 5/19/20, 1:11 PM, "rfc@edk2.groups.io on behalf of Bret Barkelew via groups.io" <rfc@edk2.groups.io on behalf of bret.barkelew=microsoft.com@groups.io> wrote:

    I will honor Mike Kinney’s efforts with my vote of confidence.
    I think we’re headed in the right direction, even with some of the things that I disagree with.

    In my history with TianoCore, I have learned to not be so quick to say “this is fucking stupid”. Every time I’ve done that, I’ve later discovered the reasons behind it, and even come to the conclusion that the designers were quite clever.

    That said, I want to contribute. And I won’t with the current system. I hope to be able to with the future system.

    - Bret

    From: Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>
    Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:59 PM
    To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
    Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

    Hi Bret,

    I believe you missed my point. I don’t want my patch series to be merged piece by piece; I want it merged all at once, in the order that I specified.

    I tend to agree with Laszlo that you are choosing not to learn how to use Git properly. Commit early, commit often, perfect later, publish once is the Git best practice. You should not hide the sausage making, which is exactly what you are proposing. I find it unfortunate that you consider refusing to learn GIt best practices a mark of prestige.

    Thanks,
    Nate

    From: <devel@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of "Bret Barkelew via groups.io" <bret.barkelew=microsoft.com@groups.io>
    Reply-To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>, "bret.barkelew@microsoft.com" <bret.barkelew@microsoft.com>
    Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 12:35 PM
    To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>, "Desimone, Nathaniel L" <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>, "spbrogan@outlook.com" <spbrogan@outlook.com>, "rfc@edk2.groups.io" <rfc@edk2.groups.io>, "lersek@redhat.com" <lersek@redhat.com>, "Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
    Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

    Nate, I believe you missed Sean’s point.

    Each one of those packages should have been a separate PR.
    Ergo, no information would have been lost in the squash.

    Also, it’s not so much that we *can’t* learn. It’s that we choose not to. Around here, it’s a mark of prestige to not open doors with your face if it seems like there’s a better way. Makes it easier to focus on the work.

    - Bret

    From: Nate DeSimone via groups.io<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone=intel.com@groups.io>
    Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:02 AM
    To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
    Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

    Hi Sean,

    My recent spelling fix patch series is a good example of why this is a bad idea actually:

    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59779&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=fVz16E37%2BwW5pSgRxI45K7nWPDlIoS0HuI8UCGmEwjY%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59779&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662145479&sdata=m66IViN3G%2BbJpBwolRXf8d3BpWQeRXs495WYxnsD85M%3D&reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59780&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=4q0lC1BSlSoQ3p0HGWwlph09HTjgJRo4nTO2Qx59%2Fjc%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59780&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662155477&sdata=VuYPqwcmYTrbiYdo%2B8K5irX8k6rgMgEoC2fY8eAocWA%3D&reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59781&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=XQVSwPMXdpDJXj9nkuvq2fenwhNt6HGGZXsJwH5Bu8E%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59781&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662165472&sdata=lMrhfWKBWKGkjNnXJJy7%2BisrugTi0J%2FUkmtnj7Vxb7Q%3D&reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59782&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=kCULGBc6%2Bifcn3cnPTV1odHI1ZUxuWQePN3POKKS3SM%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59782&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662165472&sdata=rltVYSQcSLG2sGP4d2awDIuWV11nYQcdxvqyPxDM4XE%3D&reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59783&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=SCOhUMdNXHIymGLaw9z3JTh%2Fe2BfaJaAyEC99EkG%2Fvg%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59783&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662175469&sdata=b0J%2BL4nddt3g%2FmidZO61tlkgVqrRsufOUHGjRqh1CJM%3D&reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59784&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=epET6Wk30bIHQCvEDFLkeHEfmm9tzlxRrJ%2FQAuEfQFs%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59784&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662185463&sdata=zhHUUmckRdY45oYIPodqP9r3Sh4Q4t%2FZYRLULOiAERs%3D&reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59785&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6e47f5e045f740536a0708d7fc1ed290%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255081625996312&amp;sdata=N8T7HjerJVvyGg94yMWjLm%2Fw7WDdXOdby1JpOYlPeVc%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59785&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cbf6d5aed67374c95ca3508d7fc2f20ec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255151662185463&sdata=MNUfWJhjb1UfPFciUJ2dcu9uWQwUNkS3PJO%2BeMkFVxA%3D&reserved=0>

    Notice that I split along package boundaries, because the maintainers for each package is a different set of people. If my patch series was squashed at merge time... how do I know who reviewed what? If the commit set is not correct.. I tend to say so in my feedback :). The only sane way to squash this series would be to have a human re-write all the commit messages, which I am against.

    Generally those that prefer an easily bisectable history have such preference mostly due to the usage of validators that immediately resort bisecting as a method to root cause an issue since they tend to not understand the code very well. Edk2 already has 12 years of non-bisectable history, so this method is going to be ineffective anyway.

    With regard to sending squashed commits, I understand that those who are new may have difficulty sending a properly formatted patch series, but frankly attempting to shield them from having to learn I am strongly against. I suggest that Microsoft invest in its human capital similar to how Intel does. If you cannot figure out how to send a properly formatted patch series... then do your work on the internal codebase (or perhaps MU.) Within the Intel, having the skillset to contribute to TianoCore is considered a mark of prestige, and thus needs to be earned.

    TLDR, I will reject squashed commits on any packages that I maintain.

    Thanks,
    Nate

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sean
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:54 AM
    > To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; Desimone, Nathaniel L
    > <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; lersek@redhat.com;
    > bret.barkelew@microsoft.com; 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
    >
    > Nate/Laszlo,
    >
    > Regarding a squash merge workflow.  I agree it can be abused and we all
    > have seen terrible examples.  But a patch series that contains 500+ file
    > changes isn't really much better.  Just because it is broken into multiple
    > commits doesn't mean it is the right set of commits.
    >
    > Anyway a squash merge workflow works amazingly well with and is
    > optimized for a web based review and PR processes.  It allows a user to
    > respond to changes, fix issues, learn thru the PR process, all while keeping
    > complete track of the progression.  Then once all "status"
    > checks and reviews are complete, it is squashed into a neat commit for
    > mainline, containing only the relevant data in the message.
    >
    > So, the ask is that we don't exclude squash merge workflows.  Those
    > reviewing the PR can decide what is appropriate for the PR content
    > submitted.  Just as you would request changes to the contents (or
    > ordering) of a commit in a series, if the reviewers don't agree that the PR
    > contents should be in a single commit then obviously it shouldn't be
    > squashed to one.
    >
    > Contributions like spelling fixes, typos, minor bug fixes, documentation
    > additions/fixes, etc all are great examples of PRs that can easily leverage
    > squash merges and this workflow significantly lowers the burden of the
    > contribution and review process.  This workflow is also are much easier for
    > casual or first time contributors.
    >
    > I don't exactly know how we would enable this but I assume we could
    > leverage tags or make it clear in the PR description.  First step is to get
    > alignment that a squash merge workflow, while not appropriate for all
    > contributions, is not something to be excluded.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Sean
    >
    >
    >
    > On 5/19/2020 12:21 AM, Nate DeSimone wrote:
    > > Hi All,
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I tend to agree with most of Laszlo's points. Specifically, that moving to pull
    > requests will not fix the fact that maintainers are usually busy people and
    > don't always give feedback in a punctual manner. Like Laszlo, I would also
    > prefer that we do not squash patch series. My biggest reason for not
    > squashing patch series is because when you put everything into a single
    > commit, I have had to review commits with 500+ files changed. Opening git
    > difftool on a commit like that is awful.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > However, I would like to register my general endorsement for pull requests
    > or some other web based system of code review… and I don’t have an
    > Instagram account by the way :) Personally, I prefer Gerrit as I use it a lot with
    > coreboot and other projects. But since we are using Github for hosting, pull
    > requests are an easy switch and a logical choice. My main reason for being
    > excited about pull requests mostly has to do with the amount of manual
    > effort required to be a TianoCore maintainer right now. I have set up my
    > email filter so that the mailing list is categorized like so:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > [cid:image001.png@01D62D71.502B55E0]
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Implementing the logic to parse the contents of emails to categorize them
    > like this required me to define no less than 12 email filter rules in Microsoft
    > Outlook, and I have to change my filtering logic every time I am
    > added/removed from a Maintainers.txt file. I’m sure every other maintainer
    > has spent a time separately implementing filtering logic like I have. This helps,
    > but still for every thread, I have to go and check if one of the other
    > maintainers has already reviewed/pushed that patch series yet, and if not
    > review/push it. If I have ] feedback on a patch series, I have to categorize it
    > as awaiting response from author and check up on it from time to time,
    > sometimes I ping the author directly and remind them to send a new patch
    > series. Implementing this state machine is a lot of manual work and it kind of
    > feels like I’m a telephone operator in the 1950s. I greatly welcome
    > automation here as I am sure it will increase the number of patch series I am
    > able to review per hour.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > Nate
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo
    > > Ersek
    > > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 AM
    > > To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew@microsoft.com;
    > > devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
    > > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull
    > > Request based Code Review Process
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >> I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to
    > >> allow
    > >
    > >> for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would
    > >> pursue
    > >
    > >> with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9
    > >> PRs
    > >
    > >> for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one.
    > >
    > >> Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it
    > >
    > >> had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and
    > >> a
    > >
    > >> half or so, rather than the multiple months that we’re now verging
    > >
    > >> on.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or
    > from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with).
    > >
    > > And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2
    > process to github.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on
    > individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the
    > patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches,
    > moving hunks between patches).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while
    > reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a
    > separate section to "splitting commits".
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the
    > "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it
    > only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported
    > setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series
    > would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal
    > breaker with Phabricator.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches.
    > It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged),
    > and the patch count varied significantly:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015)
    > >
    > > v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015)
    > >
    > > v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015)
    > >
    > > v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015)
    > >
    > > v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015)
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open
    > > sourcing and upstreaming the *real* PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was
    > > huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated
    > > 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.)
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that
    > complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things
    > simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram
    > generation seems to be missing.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the
    > following threads on the list:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature
    > >
    > >    Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature
    > >
    > >    Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I have two sets of comments:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been
    > posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently
    > came from multiple sources.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (1a) Review was slow and spotty.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted.
    > But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > - v1 1/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 2/9: 12 days after posting
    > >
    > > - v1 3/9: 16 days after posting
    > >
    > > - v1 4/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 5/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 6/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 7/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 8/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 9/9: no feedback
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1
    > thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May
    > 11th).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the
    > day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they
    > didn't fare too well:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > - v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a
    > >
    > >              designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting;
    > > no
    > >
    > >              other feedback thus far
    > >
    > > - v2 02/12: ditto
    > >
    > > - v2 03/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting
    > >
    > > - v2 05/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 06/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 07/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 08/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 09/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 10/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer
    > >
    > >              (yours truly), on the day of posting
    > >
    > > - v2 12/12: no feedback
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If
    > reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change
    > with the transition to github.com.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series
    > restructuring is important.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build
    > pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library
    > instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new
    > library instance."
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and
    > maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order
    > changes, and an increased patch count.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > Laszlo
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >






    

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 25097 bytes --]

I’ll pour another cup of tea to that.

- Bret

________________________________
From: Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:02:49 PM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com <spbrogan@outlook.com>; lersek@redhat.com <lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Hi Bret,

To be completely fair, I think we are splitting hairs on details here. I think both of us are in 90% agreement, and we are both passionate enough about our work to argue that last 10% to the grave.

I totally understand the desire for bisectability by the way. TianoCore is a huge codebase, the core modules have several extremely large functions, and very little in the way of explicit documentation. It has taken me years to learn how this beast works. I think it is possible to not squash every patch series and still maintain bisectability.

For example, your VariablePolicy patch series; we definitely want the patch that adds VariablePolicyLib to MdeModulePkg merged before the patch that adds it to OvmfPkg. But if the patch series is done carefully it can still be bisectable. In fact, bisectability will only be maintained iff we merge the entire series in the order that you/Michael sent it; if OvmfPkg gets merged first, then OvmfPkg will fail to build until the MdeModulePkg patch is merged. I don't think it would be the right thing to squash the OvmfPkg & MdeModulePkg patches together, as they really are distinct steps that you took on your journey towards making the VariablePolicy sausage.

Of course, there may be other patch series that would be logical to squash, especially if the author has not been careful to maintain bisectability. For example, I think of some patch series went a little overboard and could have been done in maybe 1-2 patches instead of 8-10. I would be happy to compromise with you and say that squashes can be done in circumstances where both the maintainer and the author agree to it.

Finally, I believe I can speak for everyone here that we all welcome your contributions. I think Mike and the rest of the community are trying to adjust the process to make contributing viable for a larger set of people. But at the same time, you must realize that TianoCore isn't just going to do everything exactly the same way that Microsoft does. You and Sean are expected to compromise with the rest of the community.

Thanks,
Nate

On 5/19/20, 1:11 PM, "rfc@edk2.groups.io on behalf of Bret Barkelew via groups.io" <rfc@edk2.groups.io on behalf of bret.barkelew=microsoft.com@groups.io> wrote:

    I will honor Mike Kinney’s efforts with my vote of confidence.
    I think we’re headed in the right direction, even with some of the things that I disagree with.

    In my history with TianoCore, I have learned to not be so quick to say “this is fucking stupid”. Every time I’ve done that, I’ve later discovered the reasons behind it, and even come to the conclusion that the designers were quite clever.

    That said, I want to contribute. And I won’t with the current system. I hope to be able to with the future system.

    - Bret

    From: Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>
    Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:59 PM
    To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
    Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

    Hi Bret,

    I believe you missed my point. I don’t want my patch series to be merged piece by piece; I want it merged all at once, in the order that I specified.

    I tend to agree with Laszlo that you are choosing not to learn how to use Git properly. Commit early, commit often, perfect later, publish once is the Git best practice. You should not hide the sausage making, which is exactly what you are proposing. I find it unfortunate that you consider refusing to learn GIt best practices a mark of prestige.

    Thanks,
    Nate

    From: <devel@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of "Bret Barkelew via groups.io" <bret.barkelew=microsoft.com@groups.io>
    Reply-To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>, "bret.barkelew@microsoft.com" <bret.barkelew@microsoft.com>
    Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 12:35 PM
    To: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>, "Desimone, Nathaniel L" <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>, "spbrogan@outlook.com" <spbrogan@outlook.com>, "rfc@edk2.groups.io" <rfc@edk2.groups.io>, "lersek@redhat.com" <lersek@redhat.com>, "Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
    Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

    Nate, I believe you missed Sean’s point.

    Each one of those packages should have been a separate PR.
    Ergo, no information would have been lost in the squash.

    Also, it’s not so much that we *can’t* learn. It’s that we choose not to. Around here, it’s a mark of prestige to not open doors with your face if it seems like there’s a better way. Makes it easier to focus on the work.

    - Bret

    From: Nate DeSimone via groups.io<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone=intel.com@groups.io>
    Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:02 AM
    To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
    Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

    Hi Sean,

    My recent spelling fix patch series is a good example of why this is a bad idea actually:

    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59779&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829127641&amp;sdata=xYwOvgWRR2emIUFhy3CG%2Frxs774JyHIhlA0%2BrzV8dlU%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59779&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829127641&amp;sdata=xYwOvgWRR2emIUFhy3CG%2Frxs774JyHIhlA0%2BrzV8dlU%3D&amp;reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59780&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829127641&amp;sdata=Fvqm3EWSpquv3QSxvh8uhAK1tSxlz%2Fwd7EeeyBSMQis%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59780&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829137632&amp;sdata=vi503StyynvzgVF1JO6HeL0enBF0gpne%2FmZFa5nyx9Q%3D&amp;reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59781&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829137632&amp;sdata=YXgZgfwFGRiHzlN92j7jaf8hPaA58iD21A483yCesB8%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59781&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829137632&amp;sdata=YXgZgfwFGRiHzlN92j7jaf8hPaA58iD21A483yCesB8%3D&amp;reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59782&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829137632&amp;sdata=Cad7XxJOMK%2FEsczlQVu3DcITjVQbC1j797Q11DbAISU%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59782&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829137632&amp;sdata=Cad7XxJOMK%2FEsczlQVu3DcITjVQbC1j797Q11DbAISU%3D&amp;reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59783&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829137632&amp;sdata=3ToBlN2v4o6ip13o7isAMg29pMcmh9SBSvMIDojvl8o%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59783&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829137632&amp;sdata=3ToBlN2v4o6ip13o7isAMg29pMcmh9SBSvMIDojvl8o%3D&amp;reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59784&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829137632&amp;sdata=jic1pWXehzaiYdq3ihpR7uXZ9R0T0XdsUsc%2FHeAgpUo%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59784&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829137632&amp;sdata=jic1pWXehzaiYdq3ihpR7uXZ9R0T0XdsUsc%2FHeAgpUo%3D&amp;reserved=0>
    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59785&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829147624&amp;sdata=LtOhDuYjnpe1OspUg33%2BEhSxnd0fG9COnCJjSrXJM9E%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F59785&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2edef9b2c759477da79708d7fc38039d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255189829147624&amp;sdata=LtOhDuYjnpe1OspUg33%2BEhSxnd0fG9COnCJjSrXJM9E%3D&amp;reserved=0>

    Notice that I split along package boundaries, because the maintainers for each package is a different set of people. If my patch series was squashed at merge time... how do I know who reviewed what? If the commit set is not correct.. I tend to say so in my feedback :). The only sane way to squash this series would be to have a human re-write all the commit messages, which I am against.

    Generally those that prefer an easily bisectable history have such preference mostly due to the usage of validators that immediately resort bisecting as a method to root cause an issue since they tend to not understand the code very well. Edk2 already has 12 years of non-bisectable history, so this method is going to be ineffective anyway.

    With regard to sending squashed commits, I understand that those who are new may have difficulty sending a properly formatted patch series, but frankly attempting to shield them from having to learn I am strongly against. I suggest that Microsoft invest in its human capital similar to how Intel does. If you cannot figure out how to send a properly formatted patch series... then do your work on the internal codebase (or perhaps MU.) Within the Intel, having the skillset to contribute to TianoCore is considered a mark of prestige, and thus needs to be earned.

    TLDR, I will reject squashed commits on any packages that I maintain.

    Thanks,
    Nate

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sean
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:54 AM
    > To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; Desimone, Nathaniel L
    > <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; lersek@redhat.com;
    > bret.barkelew@microsoft.com; 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
    >
    > Nate/Laszlo,
    >
    > Regarding a squash merge workflow.  I agree it can be abused and we all
    > have seen terrible examples.  But a patch series that contains 500+ file
    > changes isn't really much better.  Just because it is broken into multiple
    > commits doesn't mean it is the right set of commits.
    >
    > Anyway a squash merge workflow works amazingly well with and is
    > optimized for a web based review and PR processes.  It allows a user to
    > respond to changes, fix issues, learn thru the PR process, all while keeping
    > complete track of the progression.  Then once all "status"
    > checks and reviews are complete, it is squashed into a neat commit for
    > mainline, containing only the relevant data in the message.
    >
    > So, the ask is that we don't exclude squash merge workflows.  Those
    > reviewing the PR can decide what is appropriate for the PR content
    > submitted.  Just as you would request changes to the contents (or
    > ordering) of a commit in a series, if the reviewers don't agree that the PR
    > contents should be in a single commit then obviously it shouldn't be
    > squashed to one.
    >
    > Contributions like spelling fixes, typos, minor bug fixes, documentation
    > additions/fixes, etc all are great examples of PRs that can easily leverage
    > squash merges and this workflow significantly lowers the burden of the
    > contribution and review process.  This workflow is also are much easier for
    > casual or first time contributors.
    >
    > I don't exactly know how we would enable this but I assume we could
    > leverage tags or make it clear in the PR description.  First step is to get
    > alignment that a squash merge workflow, while not appropriate for all
    > contributions, is not something to be excluded.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Sean
    >
    >
    >
    > On 5/19/2020 12:21 AM, Nate DeSimone wrote:
    > > Hi All,
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I tend to agree with most of Laszlo's points. Specifically, that moving to pull
    > requests will not fix the fact that maintainers are usually busy people and
    > don't always give feedback in a punctual manner. Like Laszlo, I would also
    > prefer that we do not squash patch series. My biggest reason for not
    > squashing patch series is because when you put everything into a single
    > commit, I have had to review commits with 500+ files changed. Opening git
    > difftool on a commit like that is awful.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > However, I would like to register my general endorsement for pull requests
    > or some other web based system of code review… and I don’t have an
    > Instagram account by the way :) Personally, I prefer Gerrit as I use it a lot with
    > coreboot and other projects. But since we are using Github for hosting, pull
    > requests are an easy switch and a logical choice. My main reason for being
    > excited about pull requests mostly has to do with the amount of manual
    > effort required to be a TianoCore maintainer right now. I have set up my
    > email filter so that the mailing list is categorized like so:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > [cid:image001.png@01D62D71.502B55E0]
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Implementing the logic to parse the contents of emails to categorize them
    > like this required me to define no less than 12 email filter rules in Microsoft
    > Outlook, and I have to change my filtering logic every time I am
    > added/removed from a Maintainers.txt file. I’m sure every other maintainer
    > has spent a time separately implementing filtering logic like I have. This helps,
    > but still for every thread, I have to go and check if one of the other
    > maintainers has already reviewed/pushed that patch series yet, and if not
    > review/push it. If I have ] feedback on a patch series, I have to categorize it
    > as awaiting response from author and check up on it from time to time,
    > sometimes I ping the author directly and remind them to send a new patch
    > series. Implementing this state machine is a lot of manual work and it kind of
    > feels like I’m a telephone operator in the 1950s. I greatly welcome
    > automation here as I am sure it will increase the number of patch series I am
    > able to review per hour.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > Nate
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo
    > > Ersek
    > > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 AM
    > > To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew@microsoft.com;
    > > devel@edk2.groups.io; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
    > > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull
    > > Request based Code Review Process
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On 05/15/20 06:49, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >> I would far prefer the approach of individual PRs for commits to
    > >> allow
    > >
    > >> for the squash flexibility (and is the strategy I think I would
    > >> pursue
    > >
    > >> with my PRs). For example, the VarPol PR would be broken up into 9
    > >> PRs
    > >
    > >> for each final commit, and we can get them in one by one.
    > >
    > >> Ideally, each one would be a small back and forth and then in. If it
    > >
    > >> had been done that way to begin with, it would be over in a week and
    > >> a
    > >
    > >> half or so, rather than the multiple months that we’re now verging
    > >
    > >> on.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > This differs extremely from how we've been working on edk2-devel (or
    > from how any git-based project works that I've ever been involved with).
    > >
    > > And I think the above workflow is out of scope, for migrating the edk2
    > process to github.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Again, the structuring of a patch series is a primary trait. Iterating only on
    > individual patches does not allow for the reordering / restructuring of the
    > patch series (dropping patches, reordering patches, inserting patches,
    > moving hunks between patches).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > It's common that the necessity to revise an earlier patch emerges while
    > reworking a later patch. For instance, the git-rebase(1) manual dedicates a
    > separate section to "splitting commits".
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > In the initial evaluation of "web forges", Phabricator was one of the
    > "contestants". Phabricator didn't support the "patch series" concept at all, it
    > only supported review requests for individual patches, and it supported
    > setting up dependencies between them. So, for example, a 27-patch series
    > would require 27 submissions and 26 dependencies.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Lacking support for the patch series concept was an immediate deal
    > breaker with Phabricator.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The longest patch series I've ever submitted to edk2-devel had 58 patches.
    > It was SMM enablement for OVMF. It went from v1 to v5 (v5 was merged),
    > and the patch count varied significantly:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > v1: 58 patches (25 Jul 2015)
    > >
    > > v2: 41 patches ( 9 Oct 2015)
    > >
    > > v3: 52 patches (15 Oct 2015)
    > >
    > > v4: 41 patches ( 3 Nov 2015)
    > >
    > > v5: 33 patches (27 Nov 2015)
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (The significant drop in the patch count was due to Mike Kinney open
    > > sourcing and upstreaming the *real* PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver (which was
    > > huge work in its own right), allowing me to drop the Quark-originated
    > > 32-bit-only PiSmmCpuDxeSmm variant, from my series.)
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The contribution process should make difficult things possible, even if that
    > complicates simple things somewhat. A process that makes simple things
    > simple and difficult things impossible is useless. This is what the Instagram
    > generation seems to be missing.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I don't know why the VariablePolicy work took months. I can see the
    > following threads on the list:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 0/9] Add the VariablePolicy feature
    > >
    > >    Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:36:01 -0700
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/12] Add the VariablePolicy feature
    > >
    > >    Mon, 11 May 2020 23:46:23 -0700
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I have two sets of comments:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (1) It's difficult to tell in retrospect (because the series seem to have been
    > posted with somewhat problematic threading), but the delay apparently
    > came from multiple sources.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (1a) Review was slow and spotty.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The v1 blurb received some comments in the first week after it was posted.
    > But the rest of the v1 series (the actual patches) received feedback like this:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > - v1 1/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 2/9: 12 days after posting
    > >
    > > - v1 3/9: 16 days after posting
    > >
    > > - v1 4/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 5/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 6/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 7/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 8/9: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v1 9/9: no feedback
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (1b) There was also quite some time between the last response in the v1
    > thread (Apr 26th, as far as I can see), and the posting of the v2 series (May
    > 11th).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (1c) The v2 blurb got almost immediate, and numerous feedback (on the
    > day of posting, and the day after). Regarding the individual patches, they
    > didn't fare too well:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > - v2 01/12: superficial comment on the day of posting from me (not a
    > >
    > >              designated MdeModulePkg review), on the day of posting;
    > > no
    > >
    > >              other feedback thus far
    > >
    > > - v2 02/12: ditto
    > >
    > > - v2 03/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 04/12: superficial (coding style) comments on the day of posting
    > >
    > > - v2 05/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 06/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 07/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 08/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 09/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 10/12: no feedback
    > >
    > > - v2 11/12: reasonably in-depth review from responsible co-maintainer
    > >
    > >              (yours truly), on the day of posting
    > >
    > > - v2 12/12: no feedback
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > In total, I don't think the current process takes the blame for the delay. If
    > reviewers don't care (or have no time) now, that problem will not change
    > with the transition to github.com.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (2) The VariablePolicy series is actually a good example that patch series
    > restructuring is important.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (2a) The patch count went from 9 (in v1) to 12 (in v2).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > (2b) And under v2, Liming still pointed out: "To keep each commit build
    > pass, the patch set should first add new library instance, then add the library
    > instance into each platform DSC, last update Variable driver to consume new
    > library instance."
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Furthermore, I requested enabling the feature in ArmVirtPkg too, and
    > maybe (based on owner feedback) UefiPayloadPkg.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Thus, the v2->v3 update will most likely bring about both patch order
    > changes, and an increased patch count.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > Laszlo
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >






    



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 42660 bytes --]

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/19/20 21:34, Bret Barkelew wrote:
> Nate, I believe you missed Sean’s point.
> 
> Each one of those packages should have been a separate PR.

And then we get to wrangle inter-PR dependencies.

Even if github.com supports that, it's a heavy-weight tool, and should
be used sparingly. Patches in a patch series are almost always
inter-dependent in some way, which indicates that many normal patch sets
would have to be split into multiple PRs.

> Ergo, no information would have been lost in the squash.
> 
> Also, it’s not so much that we *can’t* learn. It’s that we choose not to. Around here, it’s a mark of prestige to not open doors with your face if it seems like there’s a better way. Makes it easier to focus on the work.

Wrt. "open doors with your face", which I understand to be a retort to
Nate associating prestige with conforming to the current workflow:

I think the expression breaks the Code of Conduct:

  https://www.tianocore.org/coc.html

"Do not insult or put down other participants"

(... Before anyone suggests that I did the same when I called
maintainers & people en bloc "irrepairably lazy and undisciplined" in my
previous mail: that's a fact about humans.

People on average perform the minimum of work they can get away with,
for satisfying requirements and for reaching goals. It's natural. That's
why we have to set high standards. So that covers "lazy".

And "undisciplined" (= ignoring rules and good practices) is evidenced
frequently, with fixed BZs left open, posted patches not referenced in
the BZs they address, BZs ignored / left un-triaged for months and
years, pending patches ignored for weeks, reviewed patches left unmerged
for days or weeks, etc. I'm not throwing around accusations, just
showing that my statement was factual, hardly an insult. OTOH "open
doors with your face" is figurative speech, and I do consider it an insult.)

Thanks,
Laszlo

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Nate DeSimone]

Hi Laszlo,

I think both myself and Bret may have gotten a little chippy. I think both of us are passionate about our work and that shows in the debate. I am happy to forgive Bret and hopefully he is with me as well.

Thanks,
Nate

On 5/19/20, 2:22 PM, "devel@edk2.groups.io on behalf of Laszlo Ersek" <devel@edk2.groups.io on behalf of lersek@redhat.com> wrote:

    On 05/19/20 21:34, Bret Barkelew wrote:
    > Nate, I believe you missed Sean’s point.
    > 
    > Each one of those packages should have been a separate PR.

    And then we get to wrangle inter-PR dependencies.

    Even if github.com supports that, it's a heavy-weight tool, and should
    be used sparingly. Patches in a patch series are almost always
    inter-dependent in some way, which indicates that many normal patch sets
    would have to be split into multiple PRs.

    > Ergo, no information would have been lost in the squash.
    > 
    > Also, it’s not so much that we *can’t* learn. It’s that we choose not to. Around here, it’s a mark of prestige to not open doors with your face if it seems like there’s a better way. Makes it easier to focus on the work.

    Wrt. "open doors with your face", which I understand to be a retort to
    Nate associating prestige with conforming to the current workflow:

    I think the expression breaks the Code of Conduct:

      https://www.tianocore.org/coc.html

    "Do not insult or put down other participants"

    (... Before anyone suggests that I did the same when I called
    maintainers & people en bloc "irrepairably lazy and undisciplined" in my
    previous mail: that's a fact about humans.

    People on average perform the minimum of work they can get away with,
    for satisfying requirements and for reaching goals. It's natural. That's
    why we have to set high standards. So that covers "lazy".

    And "undisciplined" (= ignoring rules and good practices) is evidenced
    frequently, with fixed BZs left open, posted patches not referenced in
    the BZs they address, BZs ignored / left un-triaged for months and
    years, pending patches ignored for weeks, reviewed patches left unmerged
    for days or weeks, etc. I'm not throwing around accusations, just
    showing that my statement was factual, hardly an insult. OTOH "open
    doors with your face" is figurative speech, and I do consider it an insult.)

    Thanks,
    Laszlo


    

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3464 bytes --]

Agreed. :)

- Bret
________________________________
From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of Nate DeSimone via groups.io <nathaniel.l.desimone=intel.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:35:37 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com <lersek@redhat.com>; Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; spbrogan@outlook.com <spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address) <leif@nuviainc.com>; Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

Hi Laszlo,

I think both myself and Bret may have gotten a little chippy. I think both of us are passionate about our work and that shows in the debate. I am happy to forgive Bret and hopefully he is with me as well.

Thanks,
Nate

On 5/19/20, 2:22 PM, "devel@edk2.groups.io on behalf of Laszlo Ersek" <devel@edk2.groups.io on behalf of lersek@redhat.com> wrote:

    On 05/19/20 21:34, Bret Barkelew wrote:
    > Nate, I believe you missed Sean’s point.
    >
    > Each one of those packages should have been a separate PR.

    And then we get to wrangle inter-PR dependencies.

    Even if github.com supports that, it's a heavy-weight tool, and should
    be used sparingly. Patches in a patch series are almost always
    inter-dependent in some way, which indicates that many normal patch sets
    would have to be split into multiple PRs.

    > Ergo, no information would have been lost in the squash.
    >
    > Also, it’s not so much that we *can’t* learn. It’s that we choose not to. Around here, it’s a mark of prestige to not open doors with your face if it seems like there’s a better way. Makes it easier to focus on the work.

    Wrt. "open doors with your face", which I understand to be a retort to
    Nate associating prestige with conforming to the current workflow:

    I think the expression breaks the Code of Conduct:

      https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tianocore.org%2Fcoc.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C0b810c962b8045eb903108d7fc3c947f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637255209426194060&amp;sdata=2nyvAPNoCddaBkvh9T4uZ5Tt%2Fpnjjwgw96YDoyiPLp8%3D&amp;reserved=0

    "Do not insult or put down other participants"

    (... Before anyone suggests that I did the same when I called
    maintainers & people en bloc "irrepairably lazy and undisciplined" in my
    previous mail: that's a fact about humans.

    People on average perform the minimum of work they can get away with,
    for satisfying requirements and for reaching goals. It's natural. That's
    why we have to set high standards. So that covers "lazy".

    And "undisciplined" (= ignoring rules and good practices) is evidenced
    frequently, with fixed BZs left open, posted patches not referenced in
    the BZs they address, BZs ignored / left un-triaged for months and
    years, pending patches ignored for weeks, reviewed patches left unmerged
    for days or weeks, etc. I'm not throwing around accusations, just
    showing that my statement was factual, hardly an insult. OTOH "open
    doors with your face" is figurative speech, and I do consider it an insult.)

    Thanks,
    Laszlo









[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5322 bytes --]

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Sean]

Laszlo,

First let me be clear, there is no desire or intent in any of these 
conversations/discussions for anyone to feel so distraught to give up 
this project, let alone someone so active and involved as yourself.

The basis for my perspective goes back to the conversations we had 
numerous years ago about being more inclusive and enabling more of the 
firmware development community to contribute and be involved in this 
project.  In my opinion this project needs help. It needs more 
maintainers, contributors, reviewers, testers, and active users. It 
needs people to write documentation, answer questions, triage bugs, and 
plan release cycles.  Without removing some of today's barriers, support 
will continue to decline and relevancy of this project will decline with it.

One of the first suggestions was to evaluate the contribution and review 
process, looking for places in the current process that are confusing, 
error prone, inefficient, or hard to drive consistently.  It was also 
important to evaluate trends in other successful open source projects. 
 From this the process moved towards evaluating GitHub based pull 
requests for the contribution and review process. That gets us to this 
discussion and in my opinion a slightly larger scope in that we are not 
trying to reproduce the current process using new tools but rather 
adjust the process to address the discussed issues leveraging these tools.

Another request from the community discussions years ago was to add 
testing capabilities to remove manual work and improve quality.  There 
has been a huge effort over the last year to enable a "core" CI system, 
practical/easy to use unit testing capabilities, and most recently 
"platform" CI. These features where developed and enabled to give 
contributors clear expectations for the quality needed for successful 
contribution.  In all of these efforts, my hope has been to enable more 
people to join this project.

Anyway, for what it is worth, I hope this long winded response provides 
some background into my perspective.  I'll respond to other comments 
below.




On 5/19/2020 1:41 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> (+Leif, +Andrew)
> 
> Sean,
> 
> On 05/19/20 18:54, Sean Brogan wrote:
>> Nate/Laszlo,
>>
>> Regarding a squash merge workflow.  I agree it can be abused and we all
>> have seen terrible examples.  But a patch series that contains 500+ file
>> changes isn't really much better.  Just because it is broken into
>> multiple commits doesn't mean it is the right set of commits.
>>
>> Anyway a squash merge workflow works amazingly well with and is
>> optimized for a web based review and PR processes.  It allows a user to
>> respond to changes, fix issues, learn thru the PR process, all while
>> keeping complete track of the progression.  Then once all "status"
>> checks and reviews are complete, it is squashed into a neat commit for
>> mainline, containing only the relevant data in the message.
>>
>> So, the ask is that we don't exclude squash merge workflows.  Those
>> reviewing the PR can decide what is appropriate for the PR content
>> submitted.  Just as you would request changes to the contents (or
>> ordering) of a commit in a series, if the reviewers don't agree that the
>> PR contents should be in a single commit then obviously it shouldn't be
>> squashed to one.
>>
>> Contributions like spelling fixes, typos, minor bug fixes, documentation
>> additions/fixes, etc all are great examples of PRs that can easily
>> leverage squash merges and this workflow significantly lowers the burden
>> of the contribution and review process.  This workflow is also are much
>> easier for casual or first time contributors.
>>
>> I don't exactly know how we would enable this but I assume we could
>> leverage tags or make it clear in the PR description.  First step is to
>> get alignment that a squash merge workflow, while not appropriate for
>> all contributions, is not something to be excluded.
> 
> the scope for migrating the contribution & review workflows off the
> mailing list and to github.com was set many months ago. That scope does
> not include institutionalized changes to patch set structuring criteria.
> The "git forge" evaluations that we had spent weeks/months on also
> focused on how candidate systems would honor a patch series' structure;
> i.e., how faithful the system would remain to the contributors' and
> reviewers' shared intent, with a specific patch set.

I hope the scope is to build an effective and efficient contribution 
process that helps current contributors deliver more while opening the 
door to the rest of the firmware community.  It should require less 
effort to contribute a change to edk2 than to maintain a downstream 
fork.  Today this is not true.

> 
> Your proposal to "don't exclude squash merge workflows" is a trap. If we
> tolerate that option -- which is obviously the sloppy, and hence more
> convenient, option for some maintainers and some contributors, to the
> detriment of the git history --, then almost every core maintainer will
> use it as frequently as they can. In the long term, that will hurt many
> consumers of the core code. It will limit the ability of people not
> regularly dealing with a particular core module to file a fine-grained
> bug report for that module, maybe even propose a fix. From the
> regression analyst's side, if the bug report starts with "I have a
> bisection log", that's already a good day. And your proposal would
> destroy that option, because maintainers and people in general are
> irrepairably lazy and undisciplined. We cannot post a community member
> shoulder-by-shoulder with every core package reviewer/maintainer to
> prevent the latter from approving a squash-on-merge, out of pure
> laziness. I'm 100% sure the "option" to squash-on-merge would
> *immediately* be abused for a lot more than just "typo fixes". There
> isn't enough manpower to watch the watchers, so "no squash-on-merge"
> needs to be a general rule.


I have trouble with this line of thinking. The maintainers are and 
should be considered the representatives of this code base.   They have 
a vested interest to enable this repository to work for them.  If they 
really are viewed as "sloppy" or "lazy" then we are destined to fail 
anyway.

Nothing in my statement of "don't exclude squash merge workflow" 
requested that we allow a PR to be squashed into a single commit that 
you believe should be a patch series. I do think those rules will need 
to be defined but that is needed today anyway.


> 
> I'm very sad that you're trying to wiggle such a crucial and intrusive
> workflow change into the scope of this transition. 

Not "trying to wiggle" anything, just focused on providing feedback and 
hoping to help develop an efficient and effective process using the 
tools available. See intro paragraph.

> Every time
> squash-on-merge has come up over the years (regardless of this
> transition), we've labeled it as one thing never to do, because it
> destroys information (and/or even encourages not *creating* that
> historical information in the first place, which is of course important
> in reality).
> 

You may have labelled it that way but given the wide spread use of this 
practice and my own great experiences enabling a broad team with mixed 
backgrounds using this practice, I personally haven't.  This community 
is a quiet one and I believe instead of speaking up, members just choose 
not to get involved.


> Well, anyway, here's my feedback: if squash-on-merge is permitted in
> edk2 or in basetools (or in any other external repository that's a hard
> requirement for building edk2), that's a deal breaker for me, and I'll
> hand in my resignation as a steward.
> 
> Maybe you'd consider that a win, I don't know -- but I couldn't remain a
> steward with a straight face after failing to protect what I consider
> one of the core values of open source / distributed development.
> 
> Thanks,
> Laszlo
> 

Thanks
Sean

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/19/20 23:02, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:

> Of course, there may be other patch series that would be logical to
> squash, especially if the author has not been careful to maintain
> bisectability. For example, I think of some patch series went a
> little overboard and could have been done in maybe 1-2 patches
> instead of 8-10. I would be happy to compromise with you and say that
> squashes can be done in circumstances where both the maintainer and
> the author agree to it.

Important distinction:

(a) "squashing patches" is a 100% valid operation that some situations
fully justifiedly call for. Maintainers may ask for it, and contributors
may use it with or without being asked, if the situation calls for it.

(b) "squashing patches *on merge*" is intolerable.

The difference is whether there is a final human review for the
*post-squash* state before the merge occurs.

The valid case is when the contributor squashes some patches, resubmits
the review/pull request, the reviewer approves the *complete* work
(after performing another review, which may of course be incremental in
nature), and then the series is merged exactly as it was submitted.

The invalid case (squash on merge) is when the reviewer checks /
approves the series when it still contains incremental fixes as
broken-out patches, then squashes some patches (in the worst case: all
patches into one), and then merges the result. In this (invalid) case,
the complete work, in its final state (in the way it's going to land in
the git history) has not been reviewed by either submitter or reviewer,
incrementally or otherwise. This is why squash on merge is intolerable:
it places a sequence of commits into the git history that has never been
reviewed *verbatim* by either submitter or reviewer. It's a "blind
merge", to make up another term for illustration

Squashing is a 100% valid tool, I use it all the time. Squash-on-merge
is a catastrophic process failure.

Thanks
Laszlo

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Sean]

When this is done in a PR with branch protections this works out 
differently and in my view your concerns are mitigated.

1. There isn't a partial squash operation.  All reviewers know that the 
final output of the PR is going to 1 commit.  Thus there is no confusion 
of what or how it is being committed to the target branch.

2. With GitHub branch protections requiring the PR only being merged if 
it is up-to-date with the target branch.  This means you have to push 
the button in github to merge in target and if any conflicts occur the 
PR is flagged and can't be completed without user involvement.  This 
would also give reviewers an opportunity to review the merge commit if 
necessary.

3. With GitHub status checks and branch policies correctly configured 
the builds are re-run every time the target branch changes. This means 
that if you have confidence in your PR gates catching most practical 
merge errors (at least the ones the submitter would catch) you have 
avoided this issue.  This is why the PR builds check every thing in the 
tree rather than just the incoming patch.

Again, this ask was not to create a lazy process or lower the quality of 
the code tree.  If there are legitimate gaps that a squash merge 
workflows creates, I am interested in finding solutions.  For example, 
the DCO requirement would need to be addressed.  But we can only start 
those conversations if we can get aligned on the idea.

Thanks
Sean




On 5/20/2020 10:05 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 05/19/20 23:02, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:
> 
>> Of course, there may be other patch series that would be logical to
>> squash, especially if the author has not been careful to maintain
>> bisectability. For example, I think of some patch series went a
>> little overboard and could have been done in maybe 1-2 patches
>> instead of 8-10. I would be happy to compromise with you and say that
>> squashes can be done in circumstances where both the maintainer and
>> the author agree to it.
> 
> Important distinction:
> 
> (a) "squashing patches" is a 100% valid operation that some situations
> fully justifiedly call for. Maintainers may ask for it, and contributors
> may use it with or without being asked, if the situation calls for it.
> 
> (b) "squashing patches *on merge*" is intolerable.
> 
> The difference is whether there is a final human review for the
> *post-squash* state before the merge occurs.
> 
> The valid case is when the contributor squashes some patches, resubmits
> the review/pull request, the reviewer approves the *complete* work
> (after performing another review, which may of course be incremental in
> nature), and then the series is merged exactly as it was submitted.
> 
> The invalid case (squash on merge) is when the reviewer checks /
> approves the series when it still contains incremental fixes as
> broken-out patches, then squashes some patches (in the worst case: all
> patches into one), and then merges the result. In this (invalid) case,
> the complete work, in its final state (in the way it's going to land in
> the git history) has not been reviewed by either submitter or reviewer,
> incrementally or otherwise. This is why squash on merge is intolerable:
> it places a sequence of commits into the git history that has never been
> reviewed *verbatim* by either submitter or reviewer. It's a "blind
> merge", to make up another term for illustration
> 
> Squashing is a 100% valid tool, I use it all the time. Squash-on-merge
> is a catastrophic process failure.
> 
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252, Size: 1021 bytes --]

off-topic, but for the record:

On 05/19/20 22:10, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:

> In my history with TianoCore, I have learned to not be so quick to
> say “this is fucking stupid”. Every time I’ve done that, I’ve later
> discovered the reasons behind it, and even come to the conclusion
> that the designers were quite clever.

while I understand and appreciate the positive message here, that
particular present participle stands out to me like a sore thumb.

I couldn't resist, and I searched my edk2-devel archives for it (for the
four letter stem, that is), which go back to ~April 2012.

I'm reporting that in all these years, this has indeed been the first
use of the word.

(Not counting the base64 encodings of some binary files that were posted
to the list, in patches -- but those encodings hardly contain "words".)

Can we stay civil, please?

(And no, I'm not a prude; in fact I've shown such restraint in my own
word choices on this list that I can only congratulate myself.)

Thanks,
Laszlo

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/20/20 00:25, Sean wrote:
> On 5/19/2020 1:41 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

>> Your proposal to "don't exclude squash merge workflows" is a trap. If
>> we tolerate that option -- which is obviously the sloppy, and hence
>> more convenient, option for some maintainers and some contributors,
>> to the detriment of the git history --, then almost every core
>> maintainer will use it as frequently as they can. In the long term,
>> that will hurt many consumers of the core code. It will limit the
>> ability of people not regularly dealing with a particular core module
>> to file a fine-grained bug report for that module, maybe even propose
>> a fix. From the regression analyst's side, if the bug report starts
>> with "I have a bisection log", that's already a good day. And your
>> proposal would destroy that option, because maintainers and people in
>> general are irrepairably lazy and undisciplined. We cannot post a
>> community member shoulder-by-shoulder with every core package
>> reviewer/maintainer to prevent the latter from approving a
>> squash-on-merge, out of pure laziness. I'm 100% sure the "option" to
>> squash-on-merge would *immediately* be abused for a lot more than
>> just "typo fixes". There isn't enough manpower to watch the watchers,
>> so "no squash-on-merge" needs to be a general rule.
>
>
> I have trouble with this line of thinking. The maintainers are and
> should be considered the representatives of this code base.   They
> have a vested interest to enable this repository to work for them.  If
> they really are viewed as "sloppy" or "lazy" then we are destined to
> fail anyway.

You put it very well. "They have a vested interest to enable this
repository to work for them." Key part being "*for them*".

Core maintainers are responsible for making this repository work for a
lot larger camp than just themselves. Even if squash-on-merge satisfied
the requirements that core maintainers presented, squash-on-merge would
still hurt the larger community that depends on those packages.

The core-consumer community may not necessarily participate in the
day-to-day maintenance of the core packages, but they do report bugs and
even contributes bugfixes / occasional features, when their particular
use cases require those actions.

And squash-on-merge hurts those activities, down the road, because the
git history is instrumental to analyzing and learning the code base.

For example, the question "why do we call this function here?"
immediately leads to running "git blame" (possibly a series of git-blame
commands, to navigate past code movements and such). In the end
git-blame leads to a particular commit, and that commit is supposed to
answer the question. If the commit is huge (e.g. a squash of an entire
feature), then the question is not answered, and git-blame has been
rendered useless.


> Nothing in my statement of "don't exclude squash merge workflow"
> requested that we allow a PR to be squashed into a single commit that
> you believe should be a patch series.

If the button is there, maintainers will click it even in cases when
they shouldn't, and I won't be able to catch them. The result will not
necessarily hurt the maintainer (not at once, anyway), but it will harm
others that investigate the git history afterwards -- possibly years
later.

I can't watch all CoreFoobarPkg pull requests on github to prevent this.
On the other hand, I can, and do, monitor the edk2-devel list for
seriously mis-organized patch sets, especially for core packages where
I've formed an "I had better watch out for this core package"
impression.

I have made requests under core patch sets where I was mostly unfamiliar
with the technical subject *for the time being*, asking just for
improvements to the granularity of the series. Knowing the improved
granularity might very well help me *in the future*.


The mailing list equivalent of "squash-on-merge" would be the following:

- contributor posts v1 with patches 1/5 .. 5/5 (for example),

- reviewer requests updates A, B, and C,

- contributor posts (in response to the v1 blurb, i.e. 0/5) further
  patches 6/8, 7/8, 8/8

- reviewer checks the new patches and approves them, functionally,

- maintainer says "OK let me merge this",

- maintainer applies the patches (all 8 of them) from the list, on a
  local branch,

- maintainer runs a git rebase squashing the whole thing into a single
  patch,

- maintainer does *not* review the result,

- maintainer opens a PR with the resultant single patch,

- CI passes,

- the patch is merged.


With the list-based process, the disaster in the last step is mitigated
in at least three spots:

- All subscribers have a reasonably good chance to notice and intervene
  when the incremental fixups 6/8, 7/8, 8/8 are posted as followups to
  the v1 blurb, clearly with an intent to squash.

- Because the maintainer has to do *extra work* for the squashing, the
  natural laziness of the maintainer works *against* the disaster. Thus
  he or she will likely not perform the local rebase & squash. Instead
  they will ask the contributor to perform a *fine-grained* squash (i.e.
  squash each fixup into the one original patch where the fixup
  belongs), and to submit a v2 series.

- If someone interested in the git history catches (after the fact) that
  the maintainer merged a significantly different patch set from what
  had been posted and reviewed, they can raise a stern complaint on the
  list, and next time the maintainer will now better.

(This is not a theoretical option; I low-key follow both the list
traffic and the new commits in the git history (whenever I pull). In the
past I had reported several patch application violations (mismanaged
feedback tags, intrusive updates post-review, etc). Nowadays it's gotten
quite OK, thankfully, and I'm terrified of losing those improvements.)


If we just plaster a huge squash-on-merge button or checkbox over the
web UI, it *will* be abused (maintainer laziness will work *towards* the
disaster), with only a microscopic chance for me to prevent the abuse.

It's not that "I believe" that this or that *particular* series should
not be squashed. "Not squashing" is not the exception but the rule. The
*default* approach is that the submitter incorporates incremental fixes
into the series at the right stages, they maintain a proper series
structure over the iterations, and they propose revised versions of the
series in full. Squashing is the exception; for example one reason is,
"if you separate these changes from each other, then the tree will not
build in the middle; they belong together, please squash them, and
resubmit for review".


> I do think those rules will need to be defined but that is needed
> today anyway.

Rules are only as good as their enforcement is.

The question is not how nice it is to use squash-on-merge in the
minuscule set of situations when it might be justified; the question is
how difficult it would be to  prevent the inevitable abuses.

The list lets me advocate for proper git history hygiene reasonably
efficiently (although I still miss a bunch of warts due to lack of
capacity). With the squash-on-merge button or checkbox, the flood gates
would fly open. I won't stand for that (not as a steward anyway).

I think our world views differ fundamentally. I value the git history
*way* above my own comfort, and everyone else's (accounting for both
contributor and day-to-day maintainer roles). I guess you prefer the
reciprocal of that ratio.

Thanks,
Laszlo

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Sean]

Laszlo,

I appreciate the back and forth.  I find email a challenge for this type 
of discussion because it leaves so much to individual interpretation and 
bias.  Anyway Thank you for having the discussion.  I hope others with 
opinions feel empowered to chime in and help this RFC go in the 
direction the community and stewards desire.

I am still in full support of the RFC and am ok to table my concerns 
that changing the tools without adapting the process will lead to a less 
than optimal workflow.  Anyway, I look forward to seeing if the "pull 
request based code review process" can help improve the communities 
collaboration and efficiency.

I have a few additional responses below that will clarify my thoughts 
but hopefully not invoke responses. :)

On 5/21/2020 6:30 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 05/20/20 00:25, Sean wrote:
>> On 5/19/2020 1:41 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 
>>> Your proposal to "don't exclude squash merge workflows" is a trap. If
>>> we tolerate that option -- which is obviously the sloppy, and hence
>>> more convenient, option for some maintainers and some contributors,
>>> to the detriment of the git history --, then almost every core
>>> maintainer will use it as frequently as they can. In the long term,
>>> that will hurt many consumers of the core code. It will limit the
>>> ability of people not regularly dealing with a particular core module
>>> to file a fine-grained bug report for that module, maybe even propose
>>> a fix. From the regression analyst's side, if the bug report starts
>>> with "I have a bisection log", that's already a good day. And your
>>> proposal would destroy that option, because maintainers and people in
>>> general are irrepairably lazy and undisciplined. We cannot post a
>>> community member shoulder-by-shoulder with every core package
>>> reviewer/maintainer to prevent the latter from approving a
>>> squash-on-merge, out of pure laziness. I'm 100% sure the "option" to
>>> squash-on-merge would *immediately* be abused for a lot more than
>>> just "typo fixes". There isn't enough manpower to watch the watchers,
>>> so "no squash-on-merge" needs to be a general rule.
>>
>>
>> I have trouble with this line of thinking. The maintainers are and
>> should be considered the representatives of this code base.   They
>> have a vested interest to enable this repository to work for them.  If
>> they really are viewed as "sloppy" or "lazy" then we are destined to
>> fail anyway.
> 
> You put it very well. "They have a vested interest to enable this
> repository to work for them." Key part being "*for them*".
> 
> Core maintainers are responsible for making this repository work for a
> lot larger camp than just themselves. Even if squash-on-merge satisfied
> the requirements that core maintainers presented, squash-on-merge would
> still hurt the larger community that depends on those packages.
> 
> The core-consumer community may not necessarily participate in the
> day-to-day maintenance of the core packages, but they do report bugs and
> even contributes bugfixes / occasional features, when their particular
> use cases require those actions.
> 
> And squash-on-merge hurts those activities, down the road, because the
> git history is instrumental to analyzing and learning the code base.
> 
> For example, the question "why do we call this function here?"
> immediately leads to running "git blame" (possibly a series of git-blame
> commands, to navigate past code movements and such). In the end
> git-blame leads to a particular commit, and that commit is supposed to
> answer the question. If the commit is huge (e.g. a squash of an entire
> feature), then the question is not answered, and git-blame has been
> rendered useless.
> 
> 
>> Nothing in my statement of "don't exclude squash merge workflow"
>> requested that we allow a PR to be squashed into a single commit that
>> you believe should be a patch series.
> 
> If the button is there, maintainers will click it even in cases when
> they shouldn't, and I won't be able to catch them. The result will not
> necessarily hurt the maintainer (not at once, anyway), but it will harm
> others that investigate the git history afterwards -- possibly years
> later.
> 
> I can't watch all CoreFoobarPkg pull requests on github to prevent this.
> On the other hand, I can, and do, monitor the edk2-devel list for
> seriously mis-organized patch sets, especially for core packages where
> I've formed an "I had better watch out for this core package"
> impression.
> 
> I have made requests under core patch sets where I was mostly unfamiliar
> with the technical subject *for the time being*, asking just for
> improvements to the granularity of the series. Knowing the improved
> granularity might very well help me *in the future*.
> 
> 
> The mailing list equivalent of "squash-on-merge" would be the following:
> 
> - contributor posts v1 with patches 1/5 .. 5/5 (for example),
> 
> - reviewer requests updates A, B, and C,
> 
> - contributor posts (in response to the v1 blurb, i.e. 0/5) further
>    patches 6/8, 7/8, 8/8
> 
> - reviewer checks the new patches and approves them, functionally,
> 
> - maintainer says "OK let me merge this",
> 
> - maintainer applies the patches (all 8 of them) from the list, on a
>    local branch,
> 
> - maintainer runs a git rebase squashing the whole thing into a single
>    patch,
> 
> - maintainer does *not* review the result,
> 
> - maintainer opens a PR with the resultant single patch,
> 
> - CI passes,
> 
> - the patch is merged.
> 
> 

The above example should not be allowed in any process.
If a contribution was submitted as a patch series with 5 patches 
intentionally, then it would not be a candidate for a squash merge.  The 
squash merge workflow is only acceptable when it is agreed that the end 
result should be 1 patch.


> With the list-based process, the disaster in the last step is mitigated
> in at least three spots:
> 
> - All subscribers have a reasonably good chance to notice and intervene
>    when the incremental fixups 6/8, 7/8, 8/8 are posted as followups to
>    the v1 blurb, clearly with an intent to squash.
> 
> - Because the maintainer has to do *extra work* for the squashing, the
>    natural laziness of the maintainer works *against* the disaster. Thus
>    he or she will likely not perform the local rebase & squash. Instead
>    they will ask the contributor to perform a *fine-grained* squash (i.e.
>    squash each fixup into the one original patch where the fixup
>    belongs), and to submit a v2 series.
> 
> - If someone interested in the git history catches (after the fact) that
>    the maintainer merged a significantly different patch set from what
>    had been posted and reviewed, they can raise a stern complaint on the
>    list, and next time the maintainer will now better.
> 
> (This is not a theoretical option; I low-key follow both the list
> traffic and the new commits in the git history (whenever I pull). In the
> past I had reported several patch application violations (mismanaged
> feedback tags, intrusive updates post-review, etc). Nowadays it's gotten
> quite OK, thankfully, and I'm terrified of losing those improvements.)
> 
> 
> If we just plaster a huge squash-on-merge button or checkbox over the
> web UI, it *will* be abused (maintainer laziness will work *towards* the
> disaster), with only a microscopic chance for me to prevent the abuse.
> 
> It's not that "I believe" that this or that *particular* series should
> not be squashed. "Not squashing" is not the exception but the rule. The
> *default* approach is that the submitter incorporates incremental fixes
> into the series at the right stages, they maintain a proper series
> structure over the iterations, and they propose revised versions of the
> series in full. Squashing is the exception; for example one reason is,
> "if you separate these changes from each other, then the tree will not
> build in the middle; they belong together, please squash them, and
> resubmit for review".
> 
> 
>> I do think those rules will need to be defined but that is needed
>> today anyway.
> 
> Rules are only as good as their enforcement is.
> 
> The question is not how nice it is to use squash-on-merge in the
> minuscule set of situations when it might be justified; the question is
> how difficult it would be to  prevent the inevitable abuses.
> 

At time of writing i don't know any way to enforce this if the 
maintainers can not be relied upon.  Given my strong agreement with 
"Rules are only as good as their enforcement is." I don't see a 
practical way to resolve this and you seem content with the current 
solution.  Thanks for your diligence here.

> The list lets me advocate for proper git history hygiene reasonably
> efficiently (although I still miss a bunch of warts due to lack of
> capacity). With the squash-on-merge button or checkbox, the flood gates
> would fly open. I won't stand for that (not as a steward anyway).
> 
> I think our world views differ fundamentally. I value the git history
> *way* above my own comfort, and everyone else's (accounting for both
> contributor and day-to-day maintainer roles). I guess you prefer the
> reciprocal of that ratio.
> 
> Thanks,
> Laszlo
> 


Thanks
Sean

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Andrew Fish]

> On May 20, 2020, at 10:21 AM, Sean <spbrogan@outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> When this is done in a PR with branch protections this works out differently and in my view your concerns are mitigated.
> 
> 1. There isn't a partial squash operation.  All reviewers know that the final output of the PR is going to 1 commit.  Thus there is no confusion of what or how it is being committed to the target branch.
> 

I use Stash/Bitbucket but even the UI is biased towards this. There is an Overview, Diff, and Commits tab. The default diff is the entire PR, you can go to commits tab and see a list of the commits/patch set and see only the diffs for those. I'm not sure how github does it. 

In our world we don't require the squash. We also have a set of command line tools that help automate common operations. 

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> 2. With GitHub branch protections requiring the PR only being merged if it is up-to-date with the target branch.  This means you have to push the button in github to merge in target and if any conflicts occur the PR is flagged and can't be completed without user involvement.  This would also give reviewers an opportunity to review the merge commit if necessary.
> 
> 3. With GitHub status checks and branch policies correctly configured the builds are re-run every time the target branch changes. This means that if you have confidence in your PR gates catching most practical merge errors (at least the ones the submitter would catch) you have avoided this issue.  This is why the PR builds check every thing in the tree rather than just the incoming patch.
> 
> Again, this ask was not to create a lazy process or lower the quality of the code tree.  If there are legitimate gaps that a squash merge workflows creates, I am interested in finding solutions.  For example, the DCO requirement would need to be addressed.  But we can only start those conversations if we can get aligned on the idea.
> 
> Thanks
> Sean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/20/2020 10:05 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 05/19/20 23:02, Desimone, Nathaniel L wrote:
>>> Of course, there may be other patch series that would be logical to
>>> squash, especially if the author has not been careful to maintain
>>> bisectability. For example, I think of some patch series went a
>>> little overboard and could have been done in maybe 1-2 patches
>>> instead of 8-10. I would be happy to compromise with you and say that
>>> squashes can be done in circumstances where both the maintainer and
>>> the author agree to it.
>> Important distinction:
>> (a) "squashing patches" is a 100% valid operation that some situations
>> fully justifiedly call for. Maintainers may ask for it, and contributors
>> may use it with or without being asked, if the situation calls for it.
>> (b) "squashing patches *on merge*" is intolerable.
>> The difference is whether there is a final human review for the
>> *post-squash* state before the merge occurs.
>> The valid case is when the contributor squashes some patches, resubmits
>> the review/pull request, the reviewer approves the *complete* work
>> (after performing another review, which may of course be incremental in
>> nature), and then the series is merged exactly as it was submitted.
>> The invalid case (squash on merge) is when the reviewer checks /
>> approves the series when it still contains incremental fixes as
>> broken-out patches, then squashes some patches (in the worst case: all
>> patches into one), and then merges the result. In this (invalid) case,
>> the complete work, in its final state (in the way it's going to land in
>> the git history) has not been reviewed by either submitter or reviewer,
>> incrementally or otherwise. This is why squash on merge is intolerable:
>> it places a sequence of commits into the git history that has never been
>> reviewed *verbatim* by either submitter or reviewer. It's a "blind
>> merge", to make up another term for illustration
>> Squashing is a 100% valid tool, I use it all the time. Squash-on-merge
>> is a catastrophic process failure.
>> Thanks
>> Laszlo
> 
> 
> 

Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Andrew Fish]

> On May 21, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 05/20/20 00:25, Sean wrote:
>> On 5/19/2020 1:41 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 
>>> Your proposal to "don't exclude squash merge workflows" is a trap. If
>>> we tolerate that option -- which is obviously the sloppy, and hence
>>> more convenient, option for some maintainers and some contributors,
>>> to the detriment of the git history --, then almost every core
>>> maintainer will use it as frequently as they can. In the long term,
>>> that will hurt many consumers of the core code. It will limit the
>>> ability of people not regularly dealing with a particular core module
>>> to file a fine-grained bug report for that module, maybe even propose
>>> a fix. From the regression analyst's side, if the bug report starts
>>> with "I have a bisection log", that's already a good day. And your
>>> proposal would destroy that option, because maintainers and people in
>>> general are irrepairably lazy and undisciplined. We cannot post a
>>> community member shoulder-by-shoulder with every core package
>>> reviewer/maintainer to prevent the latter from approving a
>>> squash-on-merge, out of pure laziness. I'm 100% sure the "option" to
>>> squash-on-merge would *immediately* be abused for a lot more than
>>> just "typo fixes". There isn't enough manpower to watch the watchers,
>>> so "no squash-on-merge" needs to be a general rule.
>> 
>> 
>> I have trouble with this line of thinking. The maintainers are and
>> should be considered the representatives of this code base.   They
>> have a vested interest to enable this repository to work for them.  If
>> they really are viewed as "sloppy" or "lazy" then we are destined to
>> fail anyway.
> 
> You put it very well. "They have a vested interest to enable this
> repository to work for them." Key part being "*for them*".
> 
> Core maintainers are responsible for making this repository work for a
> lot larger camp than just themselves. Even if squash-on-merge satisfied
> the requirements that core maintainers presented, squash-on-merge would
> still hurt the larger community that depends on those packages.
> 
> The core-consumer community may not necessarily participate in the
> day-to-day maintenance of the core packages, but they do report bugs and
> even contributes bugfixes / occasional features, when their particular
> use cases require those actions.
> 
> And squash-on-merge hurts those activities, down the road, because the
> git history is instrumental to analyzing and learning the code base.
> 
> For example, the question "why do we call this function here?"
> immediately leads to running "git blame" (possibly a series of git-blame
> commands, to navigate past code movements and such). In the end
> git-blame leads to a particular commit, and that commit is supposed to
> answer the question. If the commit is huge (e.g. a squash of an entire
> feature), then the question is not answered, and git-blame has been
> rendered useless.
> 
> 
>> Nothing in my statement of "don't exclude squash merge workflow"
>> requested that we allow a PR to be squashed into a single commit that
>> you believe should be a patch series.
> 
> If the button is there, maintainers will click it even in cases when
> they shouldn't, and I won't be able to catch them. The result will not
> necessarily hurt the maintainer (not at once, anyway), but it will harm
> others that investigate the git history afterwards -- possibly years
> later.
> 
> I can't watch all CoreFoobarPkg pull requests on github to prevent this.
> On the other hand, I can, and do, monitor the edk2-devel list for
> seriously mis-organized patch sets, especially for core packages where
> I've formed an "I had better watch out for this core package"
> impression.
> 
> I have made requests under core patch sets where I was mostly unfamiliar
> with the technical subject *for the time being*, asking just for
> improvements to the granularity of the series. Knowing the improved
> granularity might very well help me *in the future*.
> 
> 
> The mailing list equivalent of "squash-on-merge" would be the following:
> 
> - contributor posts v1 with patches 1/5 .. 5/5 (for example),
> 
> - reviewer requests updates A, B, and C,
> 
> - contributor posts (in response to the v1 blurb, i.e. 0/5) further
>  patches 6/8, 7/8, 8/8
> 
> - reviewer checks the new patches and approves them, functionally,
> 
> - maintainer says "OK let me merge this",
> 
> - maintainer applies the patches (all 8 of them) from the list, on a
>  local branch,
> 
> - maintainer runs a git rebase squashing the whole thing into a single
>  patch,
> 
> - maintainer does *not* review the result,
> 
> - maintainer opens a PR with the resultant single patch,
> 
> - CI passes,
> 
> - the patch is merged.
> 
> 
> With the list-based process, the disaster in the last step is mitigated
> in at least three spots:
> 
> - All subscribers have a reasonably good chance to notice and intervene
>  when the incremental fixups 6/8, 7/8, 8/8 are posted as followups to
>  the v1 blurb, clearly with an intent to squash.
> 
> - Because the maintainer has to do *extra work* for the squashing, the
>  natural laziness of the maintainer works *against* the disaster. Thus
>  he or she will likely not perform the local rebase & squash. Instead
>  they will ask the contributor to perform a *fine-grained* squash (i.e.
>  squash each fixup into the one original patch where the fixup
>  belongs), and to submit a v2 series.
> 
> - If someone interested in the git history catches (after the fact) that
>  the maintainer merged a significantly different patch set from what
>  had been posted and reviewed, they can raise a stern complaint on the
>  list, and next time the maintainer will now better.
> 
> (This is not a theoretical option; I low-key follow both the list
> traffic and the new commits in the git history (whenever I pull). In the
> past I had reported several patch application violations (mismanaged
> feedback tags, intrusive updates post-review, etc). Nowadays it's gotten
> quite OK, thankfully, and I'm terrified of losing those improvements.)
> 
> 
> If we just plaster a huge squash-on-merge button or checkbox over the
> web UI, it *will* be abused (maintainer laziness will work *towards* the
> disaster), with only a microscopic chance for me to prevent the abuse.
> 
> It's not that "I believe" that this or that *particular* series should
> not be squashed. "Not squashing" is not the exception but the rule. The
> *default* approach is that the submitter incorporates incremental fixes
> into the series at the right stages, they maintain a proper series
> structure over the iterations, and they propose revised versions of the
> series in full. Squashing is the exception; for example one reason is,
> "if you separate these changes from each other, then the tree will not
> build in the middle; they belong together, please squash them, and
> resubmit for review".
> 
> 
>> I do think those rules will need to be defined but that is needed
>> today anyway.
> 
> Rules are only as good as their enforcement is.
> 

In my work world we require code review by a manager and that is the de facto enforcement mechanism. Basically there is always an owner to make sure the process was followed :)

Also in our world the squash is a developer choice. But we do have tools that insert the Bugzilla number in all the commits of the series, assist with the squash, etc. 

> The question is not how nice it is to use squash-on-merge in the
> minuscule set of situations when it might be justified; the question is
> how difficult it would be to  prevent the inevitable abuses.
> 
> The list lets me advocate for proper git history hygiene reasonably
> efficiently (although I still miss a bunch of warts due to lack of
> capacity). With the squash-on-merge button or checkbox, the flood gates
> would fly open. I won't stand for that (not as a steward anyway).
> 
> I think our world views differ fundamentally. I value the git history
> *way* above my own comfort, and everyone else's (accounting for both
> contributor and day-to-day maintainer roles). I guess you prefer the
> reciprocal of that ratio.
> 

I'd also point out that the processes you chose kind of defines your quanta of work. It is likely you would be willing to tackle a really big change as a large patch set, that you would likely break up into multiple PRs in a squash on commit world. In a squash on commit world you also might break a Bugzilla (BZ) up into dependent BZs, a tree of BZs. That might sound crazy, but when you work on a bigger project and there are BZs for EFI, T2, macOS, the Installer, and the RecoveryOS for a customer visible feature this tree of BZ might be familiar and make sense  to you. 

But I think the real argument for consistency is we have a rich git history that has value. We have made resource tradeoffs to have that rich git history so to me it makes the most sense, for these project, to try to preserve our past investment in git history. 

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> Thanks,
> Laszlo
> 

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252", Size: 1625 bytes --]

You know what…

That’s fair.
Apologies to the community.

- Bret

From: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:53 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

off-topic, but for the record:

On 05/19/20 22:10, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:

> In my history with TianoCore, I have learned to not be so quick to
> say “this is fucking stupid”. Every time I’ve done that, I’ve later
> discovered the reasons behind it, and even come to the conclusion
> that the designers were quite clever.

while I understand and appreciate the positive message here, that
particular present participle stands out to me like a sore thumb.

I couldn't resist, and I searched my edk2-devel archives for it (for the
four letter stem, that is), which go back to ~April 2012.

I'm reporting that in all these years, this has indeed been the first
use of the word.

(Not counting the base64 encodings of some binary files that were posted
to the list, in patches -- but those encodings hardly contain "words".)

Can we stay civil, please?

(And no, I'm not a prude; in fact I've shown such restraint in my own
word choices on this list that I can only congratulate myself.)

Thanks,
Laszlo


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3687 bytes --]

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10641 bytes --]

“But we do have tools that insert the Bugzilla number in all the commits of the series, assist with the squash, etc.”

Are these internal-only, or are they something we could evaluate when we move to the PR process? If not, are they based on anything we could leverage?

I believe that the plan is to stick with Bugzilla for the immediate future rather than use GitHub Issues (which is probably for the best for now, given the span across repos and access levels), so any tooling to tie that together would be interesting to evaluate.

<Tangent>
In Mu we have a similar problem of keeping track of what features/bugs have already been upstreamed and when can they be dropped during an upstream integration, so that’s the more personal interest I have in such automation.

Thanks!

- Bret

From: Andrew Fish<mailto:afish@apple.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:00 PM
To: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)<mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process



> On May 21, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/20/20 00:25, Sean wrote:
>> On 5/19/2020 1:41 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>>> Your proposal to "don't exclude squash merge workflows" is a trap. If
>>> we tolerate that option -- which is obviously the sloppy, and hence
>>> more convenient, option for some maintainers and some contributors,
>>> to the detriment of the git history --, then almost every core
>>> maintainer will use it as frequently as they can. In the long term,
>>> that will hurt many consumers of the core code. It will limit the
>>> ability of people not regularly dealing with a particular core module
>>> to file a fine-grained bug report for that module, maybe even propose
>>> a fix. From the regression analyst's side, if the bug report starts
>>> with "I have a bisection log", that's already a good day. And your
>>> proposal would destroy that option, because maintainers and people in
>>> general are irrepairably lazy and undisciplined. We cannot post a
>>> community member shoulder-by-shoulder with every core package
>>> reviewer/maintainer to prevent the latter from approving a
>>> squash-on-merge, out of pure laziness. I'm 100% sure the "option" to
>>> squash-on-merge would *immediately* be abused for a lot more than
>>> just "typo fixes". There isn't enough manpower to watch the watchers,
>>> so "no squash-on-merge" needs to be a general rule.
>>
>>
>> I have trouble with this line of thinking. The maintainers are and
>> should be considered the representatives of this code base.   They
>> have a vested interest to enable this repository to work for them.  If
>> they really are viewed as "sloppy" or "lazy" then we are destined to
>> fail anyway.
>
> You put it very well. "They have a vested interest to enable this
> repository to work for them." Key part being "*for them*".
>
> Core maintainers are responsible for making this repository work for a
> lot larger camp than just themselves. Even if squash-on-merge satisfied
> the requirements that core maintainers presented, squash-on-merge would
> still hurt the larger community that depends on those packages.
>
> The core-consumer community may not necessarily participate in the
> day-to-day maintenance of the core packages, but they do report bugs and
> even contributes bugfixes / occasional features, when their particular
> use cases require those actions.
>
> And squash-on-merge hurts those activities, down the road, because the
> git history is instrumental to analyzing and learning the code base.
>
> For example, the question "why do we call this function here?"
> immediately leads to running "git blame" (possibly a series of git-blame
> commands, to navigate past code movements and such). In the end
> git-blame leads to a particular commit, and that commit is supposed to
> answer the question. If the commit is huge (e.g. a squash of an entire
> feature), then the question is not answered, and git-blame has been
> rendered useless.
>
>
>> Nothing in my statement of "don't exclude squash merge workflow"
>> requested that we allow a PR to be squashed into a single commit that
>> you believe should be a patch series.
>
> If the button is there, maintainers will click it even in cases when
> they shouldn't, and I won't be able to catch them. The result will not
> necessarily hurt the maintainer (not at once, anyway), but it will harm
> others that investigate the git history afterwards -- possibly years
> later.
>
> I can't watch all CoreFoobarPkg pull requests on github to prevent this.
> On the other hand, I can, and do, monitor the edk2-devel list for
> seriously mis-organized patch sets, especially for core packages where
> I've formed an "I had better watch out for this core package"
> impression.
>
> I have made requests under core patch sets where I was mostly unfamiliar
> with the technical subject *for the time being*, asking just for
> improvements to the granularity of the series. Knowing the improved
> granularity might very well help me *in the future*.
>
>
> The mailing list equivalent of "squash-on-merge" would be the following:
>
> - contributor posts v1 with patches 1/5 .. 5/5 (for example),
>
> - reviewer requests updates A, B, and C,
>
> - contributor posts (in response to the v1 blurb, i.e. 0/5) further
>  patches 6/8, 7/8, 8/8
>
> - reviewer checks the new patches and approves them, functionally,
>
> - maintainer says "OK let me merge this",
>
> - maintainer applies the patches (all 8 of them) from the list, on a
>  local branch,
>
> - maintainer runs a git rebase squashing the whole thing into a single
>  patch,
>
> - maintainer does *not* review the result,
>
> - maintainer opens a PR with the resultant single patch,
>
> - CI passes,
>
> - the patch is merged.
>
>
> With the list-based process, the disaster in the last step is mitigated
> in at least three spots:
>
> - All subscribers have a reasonably good chance to notice and intervene
>  when the incremental fixups 6/8, 7/8, 8/8 are posted as followups to
>  the v1 blurb, clearly with an intent to squash.
>
> - Because the maintainer has to do *extra work* for the squashing, the
>  natural laziness of the maintainer works *against* the disaster. Thus
>  he or she will likely not perform the local rebase & squash. Instead
>  they will ask the contributor to perform a *fine-grained* squash (i.e.
>  squash each fixup into the one original patch where the fixup
>  belongs), and to submit a v2 series.
>
> - If someone interested in the git history catches (after the fact) that
>  the maintainer merged a significantly different patch set from what
>  had been posted and reviewed, they can raise a stern complaint on the
>  list, and next time the maintainer will now better.
>
> (This is not a theoretical option; I low-key follow both the list
> traffic and the new commits in the git history (whenever I pull). In the
> past I had reported several patch application violations (mismanaged
> feedback tags, intrusive updates post-review, etc). Nowadays it's gotten
> quite OK, thankfully, and I'm terrified of losing those improvements.)
>
>
> If we just plaster a huge squash-on-merge button or checkbox over the
> web UI, it *will* be abused (maintainer laziness will work *towards* the
> disaster), with only a microscopic chance for me to prevent the abuse.
>
> It's not that "I believe" that this or that *particular* series should
> not be squashed. "Not squashing" is not the exception but the rule. The
> *default* approach is that the submitter incorporates incremental fixes
> into the series at the right stages, they maintain a proper series
> structure over the iterations, and they propose revised versions of the
> series in full. Squashing is the exception; for example one reason is,
> "if you separate these changes from each other, then the tree will not
> build in the middle; they belong together, please squash them, and
> resubmit for review".
>
>
>> I do think those rules will need to be defined but that is needed
>> today anyway.
>
> Rules are only as good as their enforcement is.
>

In my work world we require code review by a manager and that is the de facto enforcement mechanism. Basically there is always an owner to make sure the process was followed :)

Also in our world the squash is a developer choice. But we do have tools that insert the Bugzilla number in all the commits of the series, assist with the squash, etc.

> The question is not how nice it is to use squash-on-merge in the
> minuscule set of situations when it might be justified; the question is
> how difficult it would be to  prevent the inevitable abuses.
>
> The list lets me advocate for proper git history hygiene reasonably
> efficiently (although I still miss a bunch of warts due to lack of
> capacity). With the squash-on-merge button or checkbox, the flood gates
> would fly open. I won't stand for that (not as a steward anyway).
>
> I think our world views differ fundamentally. I value the git history
> *way* above my own comfort, and everyone else's (accounting for both
> contributor and day-to-day maintainer roles). I guess you prefer the
> reciprocal of that ratio.
>

I'd also point out that the processes you chose kind of defines your quanta of work. It is likely you would be willing to tackle a really big change as a large patch set, that you would likely break up into multiple PRs in a squash on commit world. In a squash on commit world you also might break a Bugzilla (BZ) up into dependent BZs, a tree of BZs. That might sound crazy, but when you work on a bigger project and there are BZs for EFI, T2, macOS, the Installer, and the RecoveryOS for a customer visible feature this tree of BZ might be familiar and make sense  to you.

But I think the real argument for consistency is we have a rich git history that has value. We have made resource tradeoffs to have that rich git history so to me it makes the most sense, for these project, to try to preserve our past investment in git history.

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> Thanks,
> Laszlo
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14571 bytes --]

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/22/20 07:48, Bret Barkelew wrote:

> In Mu we have a similar problem of keeping track of what features/bugs
> have already been upstreamed and when can they be dropped during an
> upstream integration, so that's the more personal interest I have in
> such automation.

Proposal:

- Whenever upstreaming a bugfix or a feature, open an upstream BZ.

- In your downstream ticket for the same bugfix or feature,
cross-reference the upstream BZ URL. This shouldn't be a normal comment,
but a dedicated field. In Bugzilla, there is "See Also" (it can carry a
list of URLs). In our own (RH) Bugzilla instance, "See Also" has been
replaced with an "External Trackers" list, but the idea is the same.

- When you rebase, run a git-log over the upstream commit history being
straddled, and collect the upstream BZs referenced. For example:

$ git log edk2-stable201911..edk2-stable202002 \
  | grep -E -o 'https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi\?id=[0-9]+' \
  | sort -u

This reliably presents the set of upstream BZs that were *touched on* in
the subject development cycle, because TianoCore contributors diligently
reference BZs in commit messages. Right? :)

- Use a script to fetch the fresh status of each of those BZ URLs,
because in some cases, "touched on a BZ" does not guarantee "fixed BZ".
Some BZs may require multiple waves of patches.

Of course, BZs that *have* been fixed will all report RESOLVED|FIXED,
because TianoCore contributors and maintainers diligently close BZs as
FIXED when the corresponding patches are merged. They even mention the
commit range(s) implementing the related code changes, without fail.
Right? :)

- Once you have your set of Really Fixed (TM) upstream BZs, run a search
in your downstream tracker to locate the referring downstream tickets,
checking the "See Also" (etc) fields.


In a more serious tone: while Red Hat preaches and practices "upstream
first", we obviously *do* have downstream tickets for bugfixes and
features. And if we are *inheriting* patches for them via a rebase (as
opposed to backporting / cherry-picking them), then we benefit from the
same kind of linkage. That's why I keep "lecturing" maintainers when
they fail to close BZs, and/or to note the subject commit ranges (which
I might want to investigate manually).

Now, I realize that "git forges" can auto-close tickets when
encountering ticket references in merged patches. The problem is that
*multiple* patches may reference a ticket and *still* not constitute a
complete fix for that ticket -- see my "multiple waves of patches" note
above. Automation cannot fully supplant manual ticket wrangling.


NB, the above procedure could also help with composing the "feature
list" for any upcoming edk2 stable tag. When collecting the URLs, and
checking their fresh statuses, also check the "Product" fields. If
Product is "TianoCore Feature Requests", then the ticket is a good
candidate to name at
<https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II-Release-Planning#proposed-features>.

Thanks,
Laszlo

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Andrew Fish]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13188 bytes --]



> On May 21, 2020, at 10:48 PM, Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> “But we do have tools that insert the Bugzilla number in all the commits of the series, assist with the squash, etc.”
>  
> Are these internal-only, or are they something we could evaluate when we move to the PR process? If not, are they based on anything we could leverage?
>  
> I believe that the plan is to stick with Bugzilla for the immediate future rather than use GitHub Issues (which is probably for the best for now, given the span across repos and access levels), so any tooling to tie that together would be interesting to evaluate.
>  

Bret,

Sorry for being confusing, and lazy.....

The lazy part is in house we have a bug tracking tool called radar, so I just replaced radar with BZ to make a general point. 

So the scripts I mentioned are useless for us as they 100% rely on massive amounts of internal framework, and are hard coded to our current process. 

Probably better to tell the story... So we revamped our internal process and that was lead by the folks who make the OS (so kind of like our edk2 process derived from the Linux kernel). So building  the OS made sense, but developers got stuck doing a bunch of manual work. The response was to get a group of smart folks together and  write good documentation, and build tools to automate common task.  That seems like a good plane for TianoCore too?

So I finally tracked down on our internal git mailing and figured out the mail reflector I needed to follow the basic edk2 rules for patches. To me it seems like we could try and automate thing more. I also found I had to Bing/Google to find the detailed instructions I needed as a developer, as the Wiki seems to assume you just know the Linux kernel patch process. That feels like an area we can improve. 

So this makes a couple of ideas pop into my head:
1) It would be good for folks that are not conversant in the  Linux mailing list process to give feedback on all the Wikis. 
2) Can we make a mail reflector that makes it easier to contribute?  The hardest thing for me was tracking down my internal git work group that had setup for how to configure a mail server. Is there a way to help others with that? 
3) We want to make sure any new process makes it as easy as possible to contribute. 

I'm reminded of the epiphany I got reading Code Complete the 1st time. The data shows the most important thing is consistency. So I'd say our reluctance to change in rooted in the science of computer science but progresses is always our goal.  

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> <Tangent>
> In Mu we have a similar problem of keeping track of what features/bugs have already been upstreamed and when can they be dropped during an upstream integration, so that’s the more personal interest I have in such automation.
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> - Bret
>  
> From: Andrew Fish <mailto:afish@apple.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:00 PM
> To: Laszlo Ersek <mailto:lersek@redhat.com>
> Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com <mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io <mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Desimone, Nathaniel L <mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Bret Barkelew <mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D <mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address) <mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process
>  
> 
> 
> > On May 21, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On 05/20/20 00:25, Sean wrote:
> >> On 5/19/2020 1:41 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > 
> >>> Your proposal to "don't exclude squash merge workflows" is a trap. If
> >>> we tolerate that option -- which is obviously the sloppy, and hence
> >>> more convenient, option for some maintainers and some contributors,
> >>> to the detriment of the git history --, then almost every core
> >>> maintainer will use it as frequently as they can. In the long term,
> >>> that will hurt many consumers of the core code. It will limit the
> >>> ability of people not regularly dealing with a particular core module
> >>> to file a fine-grained bug report for that module, maybe even propose
> >>> a fix. From the regression analyst's side, if the bug report starts
> >>> with "I have a bisection log", that's already a good day. And your
> >>> proposal would destroy that option, because maintainers and people in
> >>> general are irrepairably lazy and undisciplined. We cannot post a
> >>> community member shoulder-by-shoulder with every core package
> >>> reviewer/maintainer to prevent the latter from approving a
> >>> squash-on-merge, out of pure laziness. I'm 100% sure the "option" to
> >>> squash-on-merge would *immediately* be abused for a lot more than
> >>> just "typo fixes". There isn't enough manpower to watch the watchers,
> >>> so "no squash-on-merge" needs to be a general rule.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I have trouble with this line of thinking. The maintainers are and
> >> should be considered the representatives of this code base.   They
> >> have a vested interest to enable this repository to work for them.  If
> >> they really are viewed as "sloppy" or "lazy" then we are destined to
> >> fail anyway.
> > 
> > You put it very well. "They have a vested interest to enable this
> > repository to work for them." Key part being "*for them*".
> > 
> > Core maintainers are responsible for making this repository work for a
> > lot larger camp than just themselves. Even if squash-on-merge satisfied
> > the requirements that core maintainers presented, squash-on-merge would
> > still hurt the larger community that depends on those packages.
> > 
> > The core-consumer community may not necessarily participate in the
> > day-to-day maintenance of the core packages, but they do report bugs and
> > even contributes bugfixes / occasional features, when their particular
> > use cases require those actions.
> > 
> > And squash-on-merge hurts those activities, down the road, because the
> > git history is instrumental to analyzing and learning the code base.
> > 
> > For example, the question "why do we call this function here?"
> > immediately leads to running "git blame" (possibly a series of git-blame
> > commands, to navigate past code movements and such). In the end
> > git-blame leads to a particular commit, and that commit is supposed to
> > answer the question. If the commit is huge (e.g. a squash of an entire
> > feature), then the question is not answered, and git-blame has been
> > rendered useless.
> > 
> > 
> >> Nothing in my statement of "don't exclude squash merge workflow"
> >> requested that we allow a PR to be squashed into a single commit that
> >> you believe should be a patch series.
> > 
> > If the button is there, maintainers will click it even in cases when
> > they shouldn't, and I won't be able to catch them. The result will not
> > necessarily hurt the maintainer (not at once, anyway), but it will harm
> > others that investigate the git history afterwards -- possibly years
> > later.
> > 
> > I can't watch all CoreFoobarPkg pull requests on github to prevent this.
> > On the other hand, I can, and do, monitor the edk2-devel list for
> > seriously mis-organized patch sets, especially for core packages where
> > I've formed an "I had better watch out for this core package"
> > impression.
> > 
> > I have made requests under core patch sets where I was mostly unfamiliar
> > with the technical subject *for the time being*, asking just for
> > improvements to the granularity of the series. Knowing the improved
> > granularity might very well help me *in the future*.
> > 
> > 
> > The mailing list equivalent of "squash-on-merge" would be the following:
> > 
> > - contributor posts v1 with patches 1/5 .. 5/5 (for example),
> > 
> > - reviewer requests updates A, B, and C,
> > 
> > - contributor posts (in response to the v1 blurb, i.e. 0/5) further
> >  patches 6/8, 7/8, 8/8
> > 
> > - reviewer checks the new patches and approves them, functionally,
> > 
> > - maintainer says "OK let me merge this",
> > 
> > - maintainer applies the patches (all 8 of them) from the list, on a
> >  local branch,
> > 
> > - maintainer runs a git rebase squashing the whole thing into a single
> >  patch,
> > 
> > - maintainer does *not* review the result,
> > 
> > - maintainer opens a PR with the resultant single patch,
> > 
> > - CI passes,
> > 
> > - the patch is merged.
> > 
> > 
> > With the list-based process, the disaster in the last step is mitigated
> > in at least three spots:
> > 
> > - All subscribers have a reasonably good chance to notice and intervene
> >  when the incremental fixups 6/8, 7/8, 8/8 are posted as followups to
> >  the v1 blurb, clearly with an intent to squash.
> > 
> > - Because the maintainer has to do *extra work* for the squashing, the
> >  natural laziness of the maintainer works *against* the disaster. Thus
> >  he or she will likely not perform the local rebase & squash. Instead
> >  they will ask the contributor to perform a *fine-grained* squash (i.e.
> >  squash each fixup into the one original patch where the fixup
> >  belongs), and to submit a v2 series.
> > 
> > - If someone interested in the git history catches (after the fact) that
> >  the maintainer merged a significantly different patch set from what
> >  had been posted and reviewed, they can raise a stern complaint on the
> >  list, and next time the maintainer will now better.
> > 
> > (This is not a theoretical option; I low-key follow both the list
> > traffic and the new commits in the git history (whenever I pull). In the
> > past I had reported several patch application violations (mismanaged
> > feedback tags, intrusive updates post-review, etc). Nowadays it's gotten
> > quite OK, thankfully, and I'm terrified of losing those improvements.)
> > 
> > 
> > If we just plaster a huge squash-on-merge button or checkbox over the
> > web UI, it *will* be abused (maintainer laziness will work *towards* the
> > disaster), with only a microscopic chance for me to prevent the abuse.
> > 
> > It's not that "I believe" that this or that *particular* series should
> > not be squashed. "Not squashing" is not the exception but the rule. The
> > *default* approach is that the submitter incorporates incremental fixes
> > into the series at the right stages, they maintain a proper series
> > structure over the iterations, and they propose revised versions of the
> > series in full. Squashing is the exception; for example one reason is,
> > "if you separate these changes from each other, then the tree will not
> > build in the middle; they belong together, please squash them, and
> > resubmit for review".
> > 
> > 
> >> I do think those rules will need to be defined but that is needed
> >> today anyway.
> > 
> > Rules are only as good as their enforcement is.
> > 
> 
> In my work world we require code review by a manager and that is the de facto enforcement mechanism. Basically there is always an owner to make sure the process was followed :)
> 
> Also in our world the squash is a developer choice. But we do have tools that insert the Bugzilla number in all the commits of the series, assist with the squash, etc. 
> 
> > The question is not how nice it is to use squash-on-merge in the
> > minuscule set of situations when it might be justified; the question is
> > how difficult it would be to  prevent the inevitable abuses.
> > 
> > The list lets me advocate for proper git history hygiene reasonably
> > efficiently (although I still miss a bunch of warts due to lack of
> > capacity). With the squash-on-merge button or checkbox, the flood gates
> > would fly open. I won't stand for that (not as a steward anyway).
> > 
> > I think our world views differ fundamentally. I value the git history
> > *way* above my own comfort, and everyone else's (accounting for both
> > contributor and day-to-day maintainer roles). I guess you prefer the
> > reciprocal of that ratio.
> > 
> 
> I'd also point out that the processes you chose kind of defines your quanta of work. It is likely you would be willing to tackle a really big change as a large patch set, that you would likely break up into multiple PRs in a squash on commit world. In a squash on commit world you also might break a Bugzilla (BZ) up into dependent BZs, a tree of BZs. That might sound crazy, but when you work on a bigger project and there are BZs for EFI, T2, macOS, the Installer, and the RecoveryOS for a customer visible feature this tree of BZ might be familiar and make sense  to you. 
> 
> But I think the real argument for consistency is we have a rich git history that has value. We have made resource tradeoffs to have that rich git history so to me it makes the most sense, for these project, to try to preserve our past investment in git history. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Fish
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Laszlo
> > 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 22849 bytes --]

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

Hi Andrew,

On 05/25/20 06:09, Andrew Fish wrote:

> I also found I had to Bing/Google to find the detailed instructions I
> needed as a developer, as the Wiki seems to assume you just know the
> Linux kernel patch process. That feels like an area we can improve.

(apologies if I've lost context; please disregard my message below in
that case).

I wrote the following wiki article originally in 2016:

https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Laszlo's-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers

I wrote it specifically for developers & maintainers with no (or almost
no) prior git / mailing list experience. Multiple developers confirmed
later that the article had helped them.

Thanks
Laszlo

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Andrew Fish]

> On May 25, 2020, at 11:10 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 05/25/20 06:09, Andrew Fish wrote:
> 
>> I also found I had to Bing/Google to find the detailed instructions I
>> needed as a developer, as the Wiki seems to assume you just know the
>> Linux kernel patch process. That feels like an area we can improve.
> 
> (apologies if I've lost context; please disregard my message below in
> that case).
> 
> I wrote the following wiki article originally in 2016:
> 
> https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Laszlo's-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers
> 
> I wrote it specifically for developers & maintainers with no (or almost
> no) prior git / mailing list experience. Multiple developers confirmed
> later that the article had helped them.
> 

Laszlo,

Your wiki article was very very helpful. I just could not find it from the Tianocre wiki. It would be good if we could link to it from here [1], maybe as add to this: "Are you new to using git? If so, then the New to git page may be helpful."?

There are a lot folks who use git but don't use the email based review so they have never setup git with emali before. Your wiki, plus me figuring out the magic internal SMTP reflector (I reached out on an internal git malling list) is what got me unblocked. 

[1] https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II-Development-Process

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> Thanks
> Laszlo
> 

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/25/20 20:28, Andrew Fish wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 25, 2020, at 11:10 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 05/25/20 06:09, Andrew Fish wrote:
>>
>>> I also found I had to Bing/Google to find the detailed instructions I
>>> needed as a developer, as the Wiki seems to assume you just know the
>>> Linux kernel patch process. That feels like an area we can improve.
>>
>> (apologies if I've lost context; please disregard my message below in
>> that case).
>>
>> I wrote the following wiki article originally in 2016:
>>
>> https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Laszlo's-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers
>>
>> I wrote it specifically for developers & maintainers with no (or almost
>> no) prior git / mailing list experience. Multiple developers confirmed
>> later that the article had helped them.
>>
> 
> Laszlo,
> 
> Your wiki article was very very helpful. I just could not find it from the Tianocre wiki. It would be good if we could link to it from here [1], maybe as add to this: "Are you new to using git? If so, then the New to git page may be helpful."?

The article at [1] is an official document, while the "unkempt guide" is
not official. The unkempt guide starts by deferring to [1]. I didn't
think the official document should point to my unofficial one, and/or we
should create a loop of links.

That said, if someone else updates [1] with a pointer, I won't protest.
That's just something that I (having authored the unkempt guide) would
not propose myself.

I do agree that the wiki search facilities on github are basic. What has
mostly worked for me is clicking the Pages arrow, and then entering a
*very simple* search term in the drop-down search box. For example, if I
do that now, and only enter "git", then the "unkempt guide" is listed
(with other hits of course). I think this search box is basically for
searching article titles.

> 
> There are a lot folks who use git but don't use the email based review so they have never setup git with emali before. Your wiki, plus me figuring out the magic internal SMTP reflector (I reached out on an internal git malling list) is what got me unblocked.

It's great that you have access to such infrastructure at Apple!

Thanks!
Laszlo


> 
> [1] https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II-Development-Process
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Fish
> 
>> Thanks
>> Laszlo
>>
> 

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud]

I agree with Andrew. I also found Laszlo's "unkempt guide" very useful. In addition, there is a short page by Peter Batard that adds more details on the commits validation, patchset generation, and e-mail submission: https://gist.github.com/pbatard/ec1c9d1dd6e7144b07a09b057b1735a8


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> via groups.io
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 7:18 AM
> To: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
> Cc: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io;
> spbrogan@outlook.com; rfc@edk2.groups.io; Desimone, Nathaniel L
> <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Mike Kinney
> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)
> <leif@nuviainc.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based
> Code Review Process
>
> On 05/25/20 20:28, Andrew Fish wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On May 25, 2020, at 11:10 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> On 05/25/20 06:09, Andrew Fish wrote:
> >>
> >>> I also found I had to Bing/Google to find the detailed instructions
> >>> I needed as a developer, as the Wiki seems to assume you just know
> >>> the Linux kernel patch process. That feels like an area we can improve.
> >>
> >> (apologies if I've lost context; please disregard my message below in
> >> that case).
> >>
> >> I wrote the following wiki article originally in 2016:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Laszlo's-unkemp
> >> t-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers
> >>
> >> I wrote it specifically for developers & maintainers with no (or
> >> almost
> >> no) prior git / mailing list experience. Multiple developers
> >> confirmed later that the article had helped them.
> >>
> >
> > Laszlo,
> >
> > Your wiki article was very very helpful. I just could not find it from the
> Tianocre wiki. It would be good if we could link to it from here [1], maybe as
> add to this: "Are you new to using git? If so, then the New to git page may be
> helpful."?
>
> The article at [1] is an official document, while the "unkempt guide" is not
> official. The unkempt guide starts by deferring to [1]. I didn't think the official
> document should point to my unofficial one, and/or we should create a loop
> of links.
>
> That said, if someone else updates [1] with a pointer, I won't protest.
> That's just something that I (having authored the unkempt guide) would not
> propose myself.
>
> I do agree that the wiki search facilities on github are basic. What has mostly
> worked for me is clicking the Pages arrow, and then entering a *very simple*
> search term in the drop-down search box. For example, if I do that now, and
> only enter "git", then the "unkempt guide" is listed (with other hits of
> course). I think this search box is basically for searching article titles.
>
> >
> > There are a lot folks who use git but don't use the email based review so
> they have never setup git with emali before. Your wiki, plus me figuring out
> the magic internal SMTP reflector (I reached out on an internal git malling list)
> is what got me unblocked.
>
> It's great that you have access to such infrastructure at Apple!
>
> Thanks!
> Laszlo
>
>
> >
> > [1]
> > https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II-Developme
> > nt-Process
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Andrew Fish
> >
> >> Thanks
> >> Laszlo
> >>
> >
>
>
> 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5583 bytes --]

Samer,

Have you had a chance to review Mike’s PR process? Any thoughts as comparison?

- Bret
________________________________
From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io <samer.el-haj-mahmoud=arm.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 7:39:55 AM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com <lersek@redhat.com>; Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
Cc: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com <spbrogan@outlook.com>; Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address) <leif@nuviainc.com>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

I agree with Andrew. I also found Laszlo's "unkempt guide" very useful. In addition, there is a short page by Peter Batard that adds more details on the commits validation, patchset generation, and e-mail submission: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgist.github.com%2Fpbatard%2Fec1c9d1dd6e7144b07a09b057b1735a8&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cdca587d1198049354a6f08d80182b15a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637261008123224059&amp;sdata=e%2Bk1gQubOWY8gWlQAUAmjIIaqQMv6p%2FMqjUHcntVm1g%3D&amp;reserved=0


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> via groups.io
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 7:18 AM
> To: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
> Cc: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io;
> spbrogan@outlook.com; rfc@edk2.groups.io; Desimone, Nathaniel L
> <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Mike Kinney
> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)
> <leif@nuviainc.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based
> Code Review Process
>
> On 05/25/20 20:28, Andrew Fish wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On May 25, 2020, at 11:10 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> On 05/25/20 06:09, Andrew Fish wrote:
> >>
> >>> I also found I had to Bing/Google to find the detailed instructions
> >>> I needed as a developer, as the Wiki seems to assume you just know
> >>> the Linux kernel patch process. That feels like an area we can improve.
> >>
> >> (apologies if I've lost context; please disregard my message below in
> >> that case).
> >>
> >> I wrote the following wiki article originally in 2016:
> >>
> >> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkemp&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cdca587d1198049354a6f08d80182b15a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637261008123224059&amp;sdata=hwAXd7kabi4mQyTEr7AWlEyA4yHDkdwG8zr1lirgmA4%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >> t-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers
> >>
> >> I wrote it specifically for developers & maintainers with no (or
> >> almost
> >> no) prior git / mailing list experience. Multiple developers
> >> confirmed later that the article had helped them.
> >>
> >
> > Laszlo,
> >
> > Your wiki article was very very helpful. I just could not find it from the
> Tianocre wiki. It would be good if we could link to it from here [1], maybe as
> add to this: "Are you new to using git? If so, then the New to git page may be
> helpful."?
>
> The article at [1] is an official document, while the "unkempt guide" is not
> official. The unkempt guide starts by deferring to [1]. I didn't think the official
> document should point to my unofficial one, and/or we should create a loop
> of links.
>
> That said, if someone else updates [1] with a pointer, I won't protest.
> That's just something that I (having authored the unkempt guide) would not
> propose myself.
>
> I do agree that the wiki search facilities on github are basic. What has mostly
> worked for me is clicking the Pages arrow, and then entering a *very simple*
> search term in the drop-down search box. For example, if I do that now, and
> only enter "git", then the "unkempt guide" is listed (with other hits of
> course). I think this search box is basically for searching article titles.
>
> >
> > There are a lot folks who use git but don't use the email based review so
> they have never setup git with emali before. Your wiki, plus me figuring out
> the magic internal SMTP reflector (I reached out on an internal git malling list)
> is what got me unblocked.
>
> It's great that you have access to such infrastructure at Apple!
>
> Thanks!
> Laszlo
>
>
> >
> > [1]
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Developme&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cdca587d1198049354a6f08d80182b15a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637261008123234063&amp;sdata=UqY5uoxqMamf5PkFLOJ20YKE1aWTZRqGnEYuK93AxiA%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > nt-Process
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Andrew Fish
> >
> >> Thanks
> >> Laszlo
> >>
> >
>
>
>

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.




[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8508 bytes --]

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3059 bytes --]

So, today I followed the Wiki (that I had never seen) and now I’m staring down the barrel of this fellow…
[cid:image002.png@01D6338E.D6C64920]

[Not using SSL_VERIFY_PEER due to out-of-date IO::Socket::SSL.
To use SSL please install IO::Socket::SSL with version>=2.007 at /usr/share/perl5/core_perl/Net/SMTP.pm line 270.]

Anyone have thoughts? I’mma go get a scotch.

- Bret

From: Andrew Fish<mailto:afish@apple.com>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 11:28 AM
To: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)<mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process



> On May 25, 2020, at 11:10 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 05/25/20 06:09, Andrew Fish wrote:
>
>> I also found I had to Bing/Google to find the detailed instructions I
>> needed as a developer, as the Wiki seems to assume you just know the
>> Linux kernel patch process. That feels like an area we can improve.
>
> (apologies if I've lost context; please disregard my message below in
> that case).
>
> I wrote the following wiki article originally in 2016:
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2e084613c24f433ca0a508d800d978de%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637260281325061578&amp;sdata=nIMHQLnu8F%2F%2BTMMsLKVXbWnO6AWE9WuUu5k1TK4HgTQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> I wrote it specifically for developers & maintainers with no (or almost
> no) prior git / mailing list experience. Multiple developers confirmed
> later that the article had helped them.
>

Laszlo,

Your wiki article was very very helpful. I just could not find it from the Tianocre wiki. It would be good if we could link to it from here [1], maybe as add to this: "Are you new to using git? If so, then the New to git page may be helpful."?

There are a lot folks who use git but don't use the email based review so they have never setup git with emali before. Your wiki, plus me figuring out the magic internal SMTP reflector (I reached out on an internal git malling list) is what got me unblocked.

[1] https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development-Process&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2e084613c24f433ca0a508d800d978de%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637260281325061578&amp;sdata=XPx6jrloPC9LW0iCecZuFmaz3JgjCSQYeF0PEyGW4I0%3D&amp;reserved=0

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> Thanks
> Laszlo
>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6562 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: 9CBFD1B90486484E897E1E76BFD6373F.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 124178 bytes --]

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Tomas Pilar (tpilar)]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4139 bytes --]

This will probably be down to the [send-email] section of git config, do you have smtpEncryption enabled by any chance?

You could also try updating the required package:
perl -MCPAN -e 'install "IO::Socket::SSL"'

From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Sent: 27 May 2020 02:53
To: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; spbrogan@outlook.com; rfc@edk2.groups.io; Desimone, Nathaniel L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address) <leif@nuviainc.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

So, today I followed the Wiki (that I had never seen) and now I'm staring down the barrel of this fellow...
[cid:image001.png@01D63411.7C958370]

[Not using SSL_VERIFY_PEER due to out-of-date IO::Socket::SSL.
To use SSL please install IO::Socket::SSL with version>=2.007 at /usr/share/perl5/core_perl/Net/SMTP.pm line 270.]

Anyone have thoughts? I'mma go get a scotch.

- Bret

From: Andrew Fish<mailto:afish@apple.com>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 11:28 AM
To: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)<mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process



> On May 25, 2020, at 11:10 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 05/25/20 06:09, Andrew Fish wrote:
>
>> I also found I had to Bing/Google to find the detailed instructions I
>> needed as a developer, as the Wiki seems to assume you just know the
>> Linux kernel patch process. That feels like an area we can improve.
>
> (apologies if I've lost context; please disregard my message below in
> that case).
>
> I wrote the following wiki article originally in 2016:
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FLaszlo%27s-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2e084613c24f433ca0a508d800d978de%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637260281325061578&amp;sdata=nIMHQLnu8F%2F%2BTMMsLKVXbWnO6AWE9WuUu5k1TK4HgTQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> I wrote it specifically for developers & maintainers with no (or almost
> no) prior git / mailing list experience. Multiple developers confirmed
> later that the article had helped them.
>

Laszlo,

Your wiki article was very very helpful. I just could not find it from the Tianocre wiki. It would be good if we could link to it from here [1], maybe as add to this: "Are you new to using git? If so, then the New to git page may be helpful."?

There are a lot folks who use git but don't use the email based review so they have never setup git with emali before. Your wiki, plus me figuring out the magic internal SMTP reflector (I reached out on an internal git malling list) is what got me unblocked.

[1] https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Ftianocore.github.io%2Fwiki%2FEDK-II-Development-Process&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C2e084613c24f433ca0a508d800d978de%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637260281325061578&amp;sdata=XPx6jrloPC9LW0iCecZuFmaz3JgjCSQYeF0PEyGW4I0%3D&amp;reserved=0

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> Thanks
> Laszlo
>


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 9175 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image001.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 76838 bytes --]

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/27/20 03:52, Bret Barkelew wrote:
> So, today I followed the Wiki (that I had never seen) and now I’m staring down the barrel of this fellow…
> [cid:image002.png@01D6338E.D6C64920]
> 
> [Not using SSL_VERIFY_PEER due to out-of-date IO::Socket::SSL.
> To use SSL please install IO::Socket::SSL with version>=2.007 at /usr/share/perl5/core_perl/Net/SMTP.pm line 270.]
> 
> Anyone have thoughts? I’mma go get a scotch.

I think your perl installation and your git installation may come from
different sources, and the perl install may not satisfy the git
install's dependencies.

In GNU/Linux distribution lingo, I'd call this either a distribution
error, or (maybe more precisely) a git package error. Normally the git
package should spell out the pre-requisite package names, along with the
minimum required package version(s). And the package manager should
enforce that, when installing git.

Other people appear to have encountered a similiar issue before:

https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/issues/24210#issuecomment-366831944

https://github.com/msys2/MSYS2-packages/issues/1152

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/54326

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/62948


When I check on my laptop now, I see:

$ rpm --query --requires git-email
[...]
perl(Net::SMTP::SSL)
[...]

and recursively,

$ rpm --query --requires perl-Net-SMTP-SSL
[...]
perl(IO::Socket::SSL)
[...]

In other words, whenever it was that I ran "yum install git-email" (for
gaining access to the "git-send-email" command), yum made sure that
"perl-Net-SMTP-SSL" and "perl-IO-Socket-SSL" would both be pulled in.

(Assuming the RPM spec files spelled out minimum versions on the
dependencies, yum would enforce those particular versions too.)

So, it could be a MINGW64 packaging bug, perhaps.

Thanks,
Laszlo

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Andrew Fish]

Rebecca,

I cheated and used smtpServer = relay.apple.com and smtpEncryption = tls. Seems relay.apple.com does not require authentication and it just worked. 

I used an internal git mailing list to figure all this out, but seems the easy button was an smtpServer setup to be easy to use with git sendmail. It might be worth while to have folks reach out inside their companies to see if there are existing known good recipes?

Thanks,

Andrew Fish


> On May 27, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> wrote:
> 
> On 5/27/2020 6:12 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 
>> So, it could be a MINGW64 packaging bug, perhaps.
> 
> I'm getting the same error, but with a different packaging of Git: mine's in C:\Program Files\Git\cmd\git.exe .
> 
> It's version "git version 2.26.2.windows.1".
> 
> Of course it's possible it's just the same MINGW version that's been put into its own installer.
> 
> 
> I also tried using my openSUSE WSL installation, but it failed with:
> 
> STARTTLS failed! SSL connect attempt failed error:1416F086:SSL routines:tls_process_server_certificate:certificate verify failed at /usr/lib/git/git-send-email line 1548.
> 
> 
> So I ended up copying it to one of my FreeBSD systems and sent it from there.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rebecca Cran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1724 bytes --]

That’s not a bad idea: I should try with my WSL install.

I’m on the same version of Git for Windows, and think I’ll open it as an issue to the maintainer.

For now, going though the paces is just as useful to me as getting a viable environment (after all, PRs soon!), so I don’t mind trying another OS or install if that’s what it takes.

- Bret

From: Rebecca Cran<mailto:rebecca@bsdio.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 9:07 AM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Andrew Fish<mailto:afish@apple.com>
Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)<mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

On 5/27/2020 6:12 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

> So, it could be a MINGW64 packaging bug, perhaps.

I'm getting the same error, but with a different packaging of Git:
mine's in C:\Program Files\Git\cmd\git.exe .

It's version "git version 2.26.2.windows.1".

Of course it's possible it's just the same MINGW version that's been put
into its own installer.


I also tried using my openSUSE WSL installation, but it failed with:

STARTTLS failed! SSL connect attempt failed error:1416F086:SSL
routines:tls_process_server_certificate:certificate verify failed at
/usr/lib/git/git-send-email line 1548.


So I ended up copying it to one of my FreeBSD systems and sent it from
there.


--
Rebecca Cran



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3875 bytes --]

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/28/20 00:07, Rebecca Cran wrote:

> I also tried using my openSUSE WSL installation, but it failed with:
> 
> STARTTLS failed! SSL connect attempt failed error:1416F086:SSL
> routines:tls_process_server_certificate:certificate verify failed at
> /usr/lib/git/git-send-email line 1548.

That's different -- in this case, peer certificate verification was
attempted, but it failed, because the root certificate in the peer's
cert chain is not trusted by your system (your openSUSE WSL environment).

The fix for that should be identical to what you'd do on a standalone
openSUSE installation -- (1) figure out what CA cert is the root of the
peer's cert chain, and (2) decide consciously whether you trust that CA
cert to sign other certificates, (3) import said CA cert persistently
into your "store of trusted CA certs".

Examples:

(1) I think one command that works is:

$ openssl s_client -showcerts -connect HOST:PORT </dev/null

(2) up to you :)

(3a) On RHEL, this would mean copying the CA certificate under
"/etc/pki/ca-trust/source/anchors/", in PEM format, and then running the
"update-ca-trust extract" command. (Both actions need root (uid=0)
access, of course.)

(3b) For a user session (i.e., not system-wide), git-send-email also
takes "--smtp-ssl-cert-path":

       --smtp-ssl-cert-path
           Path to a store of trusted CA certificates for SMTP SSL/TLS
           certificate validation (either a directory that has been
           processed by c_rehash, or a single file containing one or
           more PEM format certificates concatenated together: see
           verify(1) -CAfile and -CApath for more information on
           these). Set it to an empty string to disable certificate
           verification. Defaults to the value of the
           sendemail.smtpsslcertpath configuration variable, if set,
           or the backing SSL library's compiled-in default otherwise
           (which should be the best choice on most platforms).

Thanks
Laszlo

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Rebecca Cran]

On 5/27/2020 6:12 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

> So, it could be a MINGW64 packaging bug, perhaps.

I'm getting the same error, but with a different packaging of Git: 
mine's in C:\Program Files\Git\cmd\git.exe .

It's version "git version 2.26.2.windows.1".

Of course it's possible it's just the same MINGW version that's been put 
into its own installer.


I also tried using my openSUSE WSL installation, but it failed with:

STARTTLS failed! SSL connect attempt failed error:1416F086:SSL 
routines:tls_process_server_certificate:certificate verify failed at 
/usr/lib/git/git-send-email line 1548.


So I ended up copying it to one of my FreeBSD systems and sent it from 
there.


-- 
Rebecca Cran

Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2658 bytes --]

Rebecca,

I was able to confirm that it was an issue with Git for Windows. Looks like it’s fixed in current snapshots and will be in the next release:
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2598

Also, ATTN: @Michael Kubacki<mailto:Michael.Kubacki@microsoft.com>

- Bret

From: Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 10:45 AM
To: Rebecca Cran<mailto:rebecca@bsdio.com>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Andrew Fish<mailto:afish@apple.com>
Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)<mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

That’s not a bad idea: I should try with my WSL install.

I’m on the same version of Git for Windows, and think I’ll open it as an issue to the maintainer.

For now, going though the paces is just as useful to me as getting a viable environment (after all, PRs soon!), so I don’t mind trying another OS or install if that’s what it takes.

- Bret

From: Rebecca Cran<mailto:rebecca@bsdio.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 9:07 AM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Andrew Fish<mailto:afish@apple.com>
Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@outlook.com<mailto:spbrogan@outlook.com>; Desimone, Nathaniel L<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)<mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process

On 5/27/2020 6:12 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

> So, it could be a MINGW64 packaging bug, perhaps.

I'm getting the same error, but with a different packaging of Git:
mine's in C:\Program Files\Git\cmd\git.exe .

It's version "git version 2.26.2.windows.1".

Of course it's possible it's just the same MINGW version that's been put
into its own installer.


I also tried using my openSUSE WSL installation, but it failed with:

STARTTLS failed! SSL connect attempt failed error:1416F086:SSL
routines:tls_process_server_certificate:certificate verify failed at
/usr/lib/git/git-send-email line 1548.


So I ended up copying it to one of my FreeBSD systems and sent it from
there.


--
Rebecca Cran



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5757 bytes --]