[Pulp-dev] PR merging

Daniel Alley dalley at redhat.com
Wed Sep 30 12:54:49 UTC 2020

I used it recently (last week).  Agreed that it is not commonly needed and
especially not in pulpcore though.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Matthias Dellweg <mdellweg at redhat.com>

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:37 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I am also concerned about the lack of human involvement and the potential
>> for things to be merged accidentally. I definitely could see that happening.
>> I like the idea of having the PR processor only merge if a label (eg
>> "Merge when Ready") is present. The question then is whether it should be
>> applied automatically or not when a PR is opened. Maybe to start out with,
>> it's not.
>> One other thing I thought of is that the PR processor could also check PR
>> dependencies (ie "Required PRs") and see if they are all mergeable before
>> merging any PR.
> I haven't used the required-something in a while, and with the new
> backwards compatibility policy it should not be needed anymore (definitely
> not on the pulpcore side). I'd say if there is such a thing on the PR it
> should never be merged automatically.
> Also we could say, that plugins should remove that tag, once the
> corresponding pulpcore change was merged.
>> David
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:10 AM Matthias Dellweg <mdellweg at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>> This just reminds me that Gitlab has a very nice "merge when CI passes
>>> button" to decouple the merge question from the reviews.
>>> The only way i could see this happen in Github is via setting a label
>>> that instructs the PR processor to merge when (label is set) && (ci is
>>> green) && (other conditions).
>>> Does not sound too user friendly, but labels can only be set by people
>>> with merge permissions anyway (so not a security concern).
>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 8:04 PM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> I have some doubts about the cost/benefit ratio of coding automation to
>>>> merge PRs vs. simply changing the default option / being selective about
>>>> which options are available.
>>>> I like the idea in general though.  A lot of projects do something like
>>>> this.  I occasionally contributed to the Servo project (RIP) and they used
>>>> automation to manage this.  The benefits were, their tests suites ran for
>>>> nearly 2 hours on 3 different operating systems, so the feedback loop was
>>>> quite slow, and automatically triggering the full test run every time a PR
>>>> was changed would be a horrendous waste of resources at the scale they were
>>>> running at.  So basically they would run a minimal CI within the PR, then
>>>> require a manual review, and once approved it would trigger the full CI,
>>>> and if that passed then it would automatically merge the PR hours later
>>>> whenever it finished.
>>>> If our test suites keep getting longer and longer and take more than
>>>> the 20-25 minutes they currently take, I can definitely see how the commit
>>>> processor approach could add value.
>>>> On the other hand, it has the downside that, sometimes even once a
>>>> commit is approved you might want to change something minor like rebasing
>>>> the commits manually, and automation might start getting in the way of
>>>> things like that.  Or, another example, sometimes there's only minor
>>>> changes requested and it doesn't warrant a re-review. Currently what we do
>>>> pretty often is just approve the PR, leave a note to change the wording
>>>> here and there, and the author can just merge it whenever they're done with
>>>> the minor changes.
>>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:49 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> Last week the discussion about how to merge PRs got me thinking about
>>>>> how we could potentially programmatically merge PRs. The openshift project
>>>>> on github does this[0] and I wondered if it would work for Pulp.
>>>>> I think the main benefits would be (1) we'd be able to code how to
>>>>> best merge PRs and (2) we'd no longer see PRs sitting around that are ready
>>>>> to merge but not merged (granted this doesn't happen often).
>>>>> I created a PoC against the PR processor that's quite simple (here are
>>>>> the relevant bits[1]). It's worth noting that we can still prevent PRs from
>>>>> being merged by setting them to drafts (I believe both the PR author or any
>>>>> repo owner do this) and the PR processor won't merge anything unless it's
>>>>> ready to be merged.
>>>>> I myself am a bit conflicted about this so feedback would be
>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>> [0] https://github.com/openshift
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737/files#diff-cbdf61d38083f599940c37eeb49cb0a9R116-R141
>>>>> David
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200930/7d374022/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list