|
From: | Anthony Liguori |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!! |
Date: | Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:41:02 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 |
On 03/13/2012 09:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/13/2012 04:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:On 03/13/2012 08:40 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:On 03/12/2012 10:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:I agree that more maintainers would be good, but we also need more people with commit rights.I disagree strongly. Having multiple pushers makes things difficult and encourages people to push without testing. Part of what makes pushing take longer than it should today is that my test cycle takes at least 1-2 hours and it's not uncommon to have to go through 3-4 cycles of rebasing before being able to push.This really sucks. If testing was automated, we could have a staging branch where maintainers would push patches, they'd get tested automatically and then graduate to master. The workflow would look something like git fetch git checkout staging git rebase origin/staging <apply patches, pull trees> git push staging <wait> <staging gets merged into master autoamatically, or you get an email from the test system>The problem for me with this is that I test before I do a thorough review. I do a quick review, but not a line-by-line review. So I don't necessarily want to queue for push.Seems to me it's better to review before testing, no?
I typically do a high level review before queuing for testing, but I don't do a line-by-line review for coding style or minor issues.
The later must be done before committing no matter how many revisions are sent. It's more time efficient to catch a functional problem without doing the line-by-line review. Best case scenario is that the line-by-line review happens only once for a patch before it's committed.
If testing cannot be automated, perhaps a lock around the tree would help.I think merging qemu-test into make check would help a lot. If all committers are running the same test suite before pushing, then this problem would become less common. It's livable now because most committers commit infrequently. But if we added more committers, it would become pretty problematic.I'm not arguing either for or against that, just trying to make the commit process more efficient.
Yup, and appreciate the suggestions. Regards, Anthony Liguori
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |