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

[Smith, Barry F.]

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 8:36 AM, Patrick Sanan <patrick.sanan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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`).

   Also add -with-64bit-indices

> - If your contribution can be logically decomposed into 2 or more separate contributions, submit them in sequence instead of all at once.


   Looks good, go ahead and add these.

> """
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> 
>