[edk2-devel] [edk2-platforms] Enable GitHub PR, protected branches, and 'push' label

[Marvin Häuser]

> On 17. Mar 2023, at 14:44, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 12:32:15PM +0000, Marvin Häuser wrote:
>> Hi Rebecca and Gerd,
>> 
>> Replying to 2 mails at once...
>> 
>>>> On 17. Mar 2023, at 11:36, Rebecca Cran <rebecca at bsdio.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I like that proposed workflow.
>>> 
>>> I've also been wondering if we could consider choosing a different
>>> product for patch reviews that supports our desired workflow better,
>>> such as Gitlab or Phorge (the new Phabricator project).
>> 
>> I'd be very cautious with suggesting / approving more tooling. It gets
>> more confusing (what is hosted where), it gets more complicated to
>> maintain (who hosts what and is "guaranteed" to be available to fix
>> things), and so on.
> 
> Agree.  Also from the web-based review tools I've worked with so far
> (not much, only github and gitlab) github is the better one.
> 
>>>> (1) In my experience reviewing patches, especially more complex ones,
>>>>     works better in email than in github PR workflows.
>> 
>> I have no experience with things like large-scale patch set review in,
>> say, projects like the Linux kernel. However, in about 7 years of
>> watching edk2-devel and opportunistically participating in patch
>> review myself, I never once encountered something about mail patch
>> review that made me think "oh, that's neat". Quite the opposite - I
>> cannot easily cross-reference when commenting, I cannot easily see
>> more context to the changed lines, and I cannot easily see the end
>> result after all patches in a series have been applied. These are all
>> things that GitHub allows me to do. I keep hearing mail patches "work
>> better", but I never found convincing reasons for these claims. Mind
>> sharing? :)
> 
> (1) Navigation works better for me.  On the email side I have the freedom
>     to pick whatever client I like and can configure it the way I like.

Well, customization is not the kind of point one can argue against. :) OK, thanks.

> 
> (2) I can easily automate things.  For example it's just two key strokes
>     in the mail client to run a script which creates a new branch and
>     applies the whole patch series.
> 
> The latter is what I usually do when I want compile and test the series,
> or when I need something plain email doesn't give me (like getting more
> patch context, which indeed is a nice github feature).

Right, but I’d say especially with tools like VS Code, just checking out the PR branch (or even opening remotely without downloading it fully) is equally easy. This sounds more like a mitigation for the shortcomings of mail patches.

> 
>>>> (2) github doesn't preserve stuff like a mail archive does.  When a
>>>>     patch series goes through multiple revision github only preserves
>>>>     the latest revision which was actually merged.
> 
>> (I’m not sure whether the old stuff isn’t eventually wiped, though,
>> maybe worth carefully inspecting the documentation for options).
> 
> Yes, this.  For active PRs this usually isn't much of a problem.  But
> try come back after a few months, or even a few years (see Rebecca
> trying to lookup context for a 2016 commit in the archives).

I also didn’t find anything in the GutHub docs regarding guarantees for archival. Disgusting.

> 
>>>> * developer opens a draft PR to run CI for the patch series.
>>>> * when the series passes CI and is ready un-draft the PR.
>>>> * github action sends the patch series to the edk2-devel list
>>>>   for review (maybe only after CI passed ...).
>>>> * patch review happens on the list.
>>>> * in case the developer pushes updates to the branch in response to
>>>>   review comments the github action posts v2/v3 of the series too.
>>>> * once review is done merge the PR.
>> 
>> That would at least be a lot better than what we have now.
> 
> While discussing tooling:  Can we move from bugzilla to github issues
> for bug tracking?  That will give us some nice automation and
> integration benefits.  As far I know the blocker for doing that was
> github issues not having a permission system, which is bad for reporting
> security bugs.  But with security bug reporting and processing using
> github security advisories now this point should be moot, no?

Hmm, is there any big problem that requires a solution? While I always like streamlining and centralisation, and I would vote for GitHub Issues if it was about a new bugtracker, I never heard many complaints about bugzilla. Everyone is used to it and there’s a ton of links in the wild. Even if the old service is archived, any currently active ticket would not easily point to its active GitHub Issues counterpart, would it? Just wondering whether it is worth the disruption.

Best regards,
Marvin

> 
> The big problem here is what to do with bugzilla.  Migrate all bugs
> over?  Not sure whenever any tooling exists for that already.  I suspect
> we would not be the first ones trying to do that.  Or switch bugzilla
> into readonly mode and keep it running that way for archive purposes?
> Would have the advantage that all the bugzilla links in the commit
> messages continue working.
> 
> take care,
>  Gerd
> 



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#101343): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/101343
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/97636248/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-