[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners

[Hal Finkel]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pawel Wodnicki" <pawel at 32bitmicro.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "Joe Abbey" <joe.abbey at gmail.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:04:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Joe Abbey" <joe.abbey at gmail.com>
> >> To: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com>
> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:25:04 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching
> >> and the	Code Owners
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 17, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I
> >>> am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think
> >>> that we need to change every file nor do we need an automatic
> >>> tool
> >>> to find the owner. I think that a simple text file, or a section
> >>> in the docs is enough.
> >>
> >> ^^ this
> > 
> > Pawel, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your
> > underlying problem is that people are sending you merge requests
> > directly, and you're not sure from whom you need to make sure to
> > get approvals. This being the case, you should stop accepting such
> > requests. Requests should be sent directly to the code owners (on
> > list). Only those code owners should communicate directly with you
> > (either to instruct you to merge in certain patches, or better
> > yet, to merge in approved changes directly). I think this matches
> > the original intent of the system: it partitions the workload
> > among domain experts instead of forcing you to deal explicitly
> > with many of the requests.
> 
> Hal, this is exactly what is happening.
> The problem for me is compounded by the fact
> that we have new code owners and I am spending
> a lot of time verifying the ownership and then
> I need to determine whether this is *approved*
> or not.
> 
> As I have mentioned in the initial message I have
> stopped processing the requests. I am just queuing
> them up until situation gets resolved.
> 
> Workflow looks simple:
> 
> Developer -> patch -> Code owner -> *approved* -> Release Manager
> 
> but currently it breaks for me when this happens:
> 
> Developer -> patch -> Release Manager
> 
> Release Manager -> is this *approved* ? -> Code owners(?)
> 
> Code owner -> *approved* -> Release Manager

I think that the solution to your problem is simple:

 1. Enforce the intended workflow: If a developer sends a patch to you directly, then send a message back instructing them to send it to the code owner (on list).
 2. Trust the code owners: Part of the responsibility of being in the CODE_OWNERS file is knowing for what you're responsible and for what you're not. It is not (or should not be) your job to verify a code owner's approval. All you need to verify is that the person giving the approval is a code owner (of something). I don't think that we have a rogue-code-owner problem, do we?

We all appreciate the work that you're putting into this.

Thanks again,
Hal

> 
> 
> 
> > 
> >  -Hal
> > 
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >>
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Hal Finkel
Postdoctoral Appointee
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory