From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: None (no SPF record) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=192.55.52.120; helo=mga04.intel.com; envelope-from=stephano.cetola@linux.intel.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93CAD2118EF5F for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 14:09:36 -0800 (PST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Nov 2018 14:09:36 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,234,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="100296022" Received: from scetola-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.254.188.216]) ([10.254.188.216]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2018 14:09:35 -0800 To: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" From: stephano Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 14:09:35 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [edk2-announce] RFC: Patch Review System Questions X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 22:09:36 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here are the specific questions that I am looking to answer regarding the different systems. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this thread. Also, as mentioned earlier, if you want to head up an investigation of any of those products and provide us with a report, that would be much appreciated. This process will help us make a decision based on community feedback. -Stephano ------------- Please describe how [Phabricator/Gitlab/Gerrit/Github] fulfills the following feature requirements. These questions are a guide, so feel free to add any information you feel is pertinent. Also, screenshots or other examples are highly desirable. Think about how our system works today and use that as a reference for what you are describing (e.g. today we do it this way, but with [new-system] it will work like this). Please send responses directly to me at stephano.cetola@linux.intel.com, so that any attachments can be shared (our mailing list does not currently support attachments). 1. No Lock-In - What automated data export is available? We want to be able to leave and take all our data with us. "Data" here includes: review comments, pull requests / patches (including metadata), old (rejected) pull requests and metadata, issue tracker entries and comments (if issue tracker included). This archiving should be automated, not something we do by hand. 2. Easy Administration - Are there any scripts or custom code required after initial setup? We would like to do as little customizing as possible. 3. Flexible Workflow - Can we use email patches / email review as well as pull requests / web UI review?** 3a. Can we can attach review comments to specific code *and* commit message locations? 3b. Are the comments faithfully translated to notification emails (including the locations in code the comment is addressing)? 3c. Are old topic branches (rejected or updated pull requests) available even after being rejected? (i.e. are they ever deleted?) 3d. Is plain text supported in code review comments? **To be clear, it is acceptable if the system handles only pull requests and a web UI. We do require, however, a *read-only* email notification system that thoroughly documents our process.