[petsc-dev] Handling pull requests in a better way

[Patrick Sanan]

Proposed addition to
https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/wiki/Home#markdown-header-contributing-to-petsc
:

"""
Suggestions for a smooth review of your contributed code:

- If adding features, include tests which cover them.
- Test your changes by running with valgrind (use `--download-mpich` to
obtain a valgrind-clean MPI implementation).
- Test your changes with non-standard configurations of PETSc (in
particular, `--with-precision=single` and `--with-scalar-type=complex`).
- If your contribution can be logically decomposed into 2 or more separate
contributions, submit them in sequence instead of all at once.
"""

2018-03-01 15:10 GMT+01:00 Patrick Sanan <patrick.sanan at gmail.com>:

> A simple way to proceed would be to advise submitters to submit their
> "atomic" PRs in a valid order. If change B depends on change A, then submit
> A first, wait until merged, and then submit B. This would have the nice
> side effect of not overwhelming the integrators.
>
> 2018-03-01 15:04 GMT+01:00 Vaclav Hapla <vaclav.hapla at erdw.ethz.ch>:
>
>>
>>
>> 1. 3. 2018 v 14:04, Patrick Sanan <patrick.sanan at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Maybe it would also help to add more explicit instructions to the wiki (
>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/wiki/Home#markdown-header
>> -contributing-to-petsc) on how to construct a branch that is likely to
>> get through the integration steps quickly.
>>
>> I'd suggest adding language about these (and volunteer to write it), even
>> if some might be obvious:
>> - Adding tests for whatever you submit
>> - Testing with configurations other than the usual double/real/C setup
>> (complex, single)
>> - Making the PR as small/atomic as possible (can your PR be 2 or more
>> separate PRs?)
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think it's quite common that one would like to factor out one or
>> more smaller bugfixes and/or improvements from a bigger PR. But some of
>> them may depend on some others, and definitely the original big PR depends
>> on all of them. Perhaps it would be nice if there is some documented way of
>> specifying dependendencies between PRs to insure a proper order of merging
>> (I think BitBucket has no such feature?).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vaclav
>>
>> - Running through valgrind (using --download-mpich) before submitting
>>
>> 2018-03-01 12:33 GMT+01:00 Karl Rupp <rupp at iue.tuwien.ac.at>:
>>
>>> Dear PETSc folks,
>>>
>>> I think we can do a better job when it comes to handling pull requests
>>> (PRs). We have several PRs piling up, which after some time (imho) get
>>> merged relatively carelessly instead of reaping the full benefits of a
>>> thorough review.
>>>
>>> In order to improve the integration of pull requests, I propose to
>>> nominate a PR integrator, who is a-priori responsible for *all* incoming
>>> PRs. The PR integrator is free to delegate a particular PR integration to
>>> someone with the relevant domain-specific knowledge (e.g. Matt for
>>> DMPlex-related things) by appropriate comments on Bitbucket. In case of
>>> delays, the PR integrator is also responsible for issuing reminders over
>>> time (like Barry has done in the past).
>>>
>>> The idea is to make daily progress with the PRs. One integration step
>>> per day (e.g. testing or merging to next) is presumably enough to handle
>>> the load, whereas things get messy if we let things pile up. Automated
>>> testing may help a bit in the future, but it doesn't release us from
>>> properly reviewing the contributed code.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any objections to my PR integrator proposal? Any volunteers? ;-)
>>> If nobody else wants to be the highly esteemed PR integrator, I can do
>>> it. ;-)
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Karli
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20180301/0fd91fd5/attachment.html>