Re: [edk2-devel] Proposal to switch TianoCore Code Review from email to GitHub Pull Requests on 5-24-2024

["Leif Lindholm" <quic_llindhol@quicinc.com>]

On 2024-05-02 04:08, Michael Kubacki wrote:
> Thank you for this proposal. We've been anticipating this change for 
> years and are excited to help support it.
> 
> Here's some items we'd like to raise for feedback that we could help 
> implement. Many could likely be done in time for the transition.
> 
> 1. Automate reviewers - We've discussed CODEOWNERS in the past. However, 
> a simpler approach (in maintaining/syncing less files) would be to use 
> Maintainers.txt directly with a GitHub workflow since the file already 
> contains GitHub IDs.

That would be ideal. I know Mike worked on autogenerating CODEOWNERS 
from Maintainers.txt, but ultimately the latter supports more flexible 
use of wildcards (things like */AArch64/ currently requires reconciling 
against the repo contents).

> 2. Make PR completion contingent on a GitHub review from at least one 
> package maintainer/reviewer for each package in the PR.

Yes.

> 3. Dependabot is already used today to automatically create PRs when 
> dependencies like pip modules have updates. To allow this to more 
> effectively keep dependencies up-to-date, allow dependabot PRs to be 
> completed (after normal acceptance criteria like CI and review 
> requirements) without a separate human creating a duplicate PR.

I am not sure what this means in practice :)
This doesn't sound like one we need to worry about before switchover though.

> 4. Potentially warn users (with an automated comment on the PR) if they 
> add a push label to a PR that is less than 24 hours old.

That sounds good.
Is there any way to prevent force-pushes within 24h of previous push?
That would make setting up a transitional review-scraper less lossy.

> 5. Leave reminder comments on PRs with absolutely no activity after some 
> agreed upon time so reviewers are notified to review the PR without the 
> submitter having to watch it and send notifications.

Yes. But should take priority below 1, 2, and 4. Unless you have a 
pre-cooked thing to drop in of course.

> 6. Leave reminder comments on PRs that meet all requirements to be 
> completed (all reviews accounted for and status checks pass) but are 
> still open so those on the PR are notified to complete it without the 
> submitter having to manually watch and send reminders.

Not a response to this, but triggered by reading this:
Is there any way to approve changes within a PR on a commit by commit basis?

> 7. We are happy to help with process documentation.

Always appreciated,thanks.

Regards,

Leif



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#118506): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/118506
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/105847510/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-