From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com (out02.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.232]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.1594.1589147066068366904 for ; Sun, 10 May 2020 14:44:49 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@bsdio.com header.s=xmission header.b=rqJBgR06; spf=pass (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 166.70.13.232, mailfrom: rebecca@bsdio.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=simple/simple; d=bsdio.com; s=xmission; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=r6VSRS6v4rerqFk9NWglEo6m1Qd1+PqTkOGQI1hcI4Y=; b=rqJBgR06Po3jg+ShTsuTSPgaki QiKlvNTofEwxsnLBCLgXgYYZGfTMnRfNH9I9yjshdcgEtzNrnB9PSW+2q4y/CcL0Myl5mON/ChyRj LXwrcoyjclkKra9XWNtJ3eJRGB2LvcD9SypwwStfwge4xXDuDxXdIlfwqhqS6hVR8Ovo=; Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXtjn-0004Ku-2w; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:43:55 -0600 Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.68]) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1jXtjm-0005aY-CD; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:43:54 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8235004B2; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:43:54 -0600 (MDT) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta4.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta4.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id yZh_LVrIfxWa; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:43:54 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [10.0.10.120] (muon.bluestop.org [65.103.231.193]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C78BE500350; Sun, 10 May 2020 15:43:53 -0600 (MDT) To: devel@edk2.groups.io, michael.d.kinney@intel.com, "rfc@edk2.groups.io" References: <8ff350e5-64ed-d338-af93-6d12f80004f5@bsdio.com> From: "Rebecca Cran" Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 15:43:53 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-XM-SPF: eid=1jXtjm-0005aY-CD;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.68;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=pass X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa06.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,TooManyTo_001,TooManyTo_002, TooManyTo_003,XMSubLong autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5014] * 0.5 TooManyTo_002 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 3x (uncommon) * 0.3 TooManyTo_001 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 2x (uncommon) * 0.6 TooManyTo_003 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 4x (uncommon) * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa06 0; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: ; sa06 0; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;devel@edk2.groups.io, michael.d.kinney@intel.com, "rfc@edk2.groups.io" X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 449 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.08 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 12 (2.7%), b_tie_ro: 10 (2.3%), parse: 1.51 (0.3%), extract_message_metadata: 7 (1.5%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.43 (0.3%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.4 (0.8%), tests_pri_-950: 1.76 (0.4%), tests_pri_-900: 1.42 (0.3%), tests_pri_-90: 56 (12.5%), check_bayes: 54 (12.1%), b_tokenize: 8 (1.7%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (1.4%), b_comp_prob: 2.9 (0.7%), b_tok_touch_all: 33 (7.4%), b_finish: 0.98 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 352 (78.3%), check_dkim_signature: 0.65 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 192 (42.8%), poll_dns_idle: 185 (41.2%), tests_pri_10: 2.9 (0.6%), tests_pri_500: 8 (1.7%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Mike, On 5/10/20 3:29 PM, Michael D Kinney wrote: > There is no difference between CI checks run during code review > and the final CI checks before merge. I think it is an interesting > conversation to decide how many times those CI checks should be > run and if they should run automatically on every change during > review or on demand. I'd suggest following what other Github projects do, which I think is to run the CI checks automatically on every change that's made in a pull request - I don't know if it might also be necessary to run them during the merge, if master has changed in the meantime. That gives the _submitter_ feedback about any changes they need to make, instead of having to wait until the maintainer tells them their change has broken something: it speeds up the development process. > Mergify is more flexible. We want to make sure the git history > is linear with not git merges and supports both single patches > and patch series without squashing. GitHub merge button by > default squashes all commits into a single commit. Wouldn't disabling all but "Allow rebase merging" do the same thing without the additional potential failure point? Though it sounds like we've resolved the problems with Mergify, so it's not important. https://help.github.com/en/github/administering-a-repository/configuring-commit-squashing-for-pull-requests -- Rebecca Cran