LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails..
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 03:56:29 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <140f804f-81a0-a75a-1dc4-0f8baa50899e@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjS6cjjP+fkZWzzrdZ_fZ1F=PrAGcBc57vKCpNyoD73Vw@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/23/18 2:41 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I've obviously started pulling stuff for the merge window, and one
> of the things I noticed with Greg doing it for the last few weeks was
> that he has this habit (or automation) to send Ack emails when he
> pulls.
> 
> In fact, I reacted to them not being there when he sent himself his
> fake pull messages. Because he didn't then send himself an ack for
> having pulled it ;(
> 
> And I actually went into this saying "I'll try to do the same".
> 
> But after having actually started doing the pulls, I notice how it
> doesn't work well with my traditional workflow, and so I haven't been
> doing it after all.
> 
> In particular, the issue is that after each pull, I do a build test
> before the pull is really "final", and while that build test is
> ongoing (which takes anything from a few minutes to over an hour when
> I'm on the road and using my laptop), I go on and look at the *next*
> pull (or one of the other pending ones).
> 
> So by the time the build test has finished, the original pull request
> is already long gone - archived and done - and I have moved on.
> 
> End result: answering the pull request is somewhat inconvenient to my
> flow, which is why I haven't done it.
> 
> In contrast, this email is written "after the fact", just scripting
> "who did I pull for and then push out" by just looking at the git
> tree. Which sucks, because it means that I don't actually answer the
> original email at all, and thus lose any cc's for other people or
> mailing lists.  That would literally be done better by simple
> automation.
> 
> So I've got a few options:
> 
>  - just don't do it
> 
>  - acking the pull request before it's validated and finalized.
> 
>  - starting the reply when doing the pull, leaving the email open in a
> separate window, going on to the next pull request, and then when
> build tests are done and I'll start the next one, finish off the old
> pending email.
> 
> and obviously that first option is the easiest one. I'm not sure what
> Greg did, and during the later rc's it probably doesn't matter,
> because there likely simply aren't any overlapping operations.
> 
> Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my
> pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where  bad
> might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to
> fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that
> warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because
> it ended up being broken").
> 
> The third option would work reliably, and not have the "oh, my pull is
> only tentatively done" issue. It just adds an annoying back-and-forth
> switch to my workflow.
> 
> So I'm mainly pinging people I've already pulled to see how much
> people actually _care_. Yes, the ack is nice, but do people care
> enough that I should try to make that workflow change? Traditionally,
> you can see that I've pulled from just seeing the end result when it
> actually hits the public tree (which is yet another step removed from
> the steps above - I do build tests between every pull, but I generally
> tend to push out the end result in batches, usually a couple of times
> a day).

I like getting an ack when something has been seen, I don't necessarily
need one for when it's also finalized. I'm just going to assume it is,
unless I hear otherwise. I always reply to peoples pulls, even if it's
just saying "Pulled, thanks". What happens when you don't send one is
that:

1) I regularly check the git repo to see if it's actually in.
2) If I do get a reply to one, I cringe. Why? Because it's usually
   yelling about something wrong. This means I also more regularly
   check email to see if there's yelling queued up.

I'd say do whatever works the best for your workflow, but one of
option 2 or 3 would be preferable. #2 seems like it would fit just fine
with your existing workflow. 

-- 
Jens Axboe


  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-10-23  9:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-23  8:41 Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23  8:53 ` Linus Walleij
2018-10-23  9:10   ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23  9:35     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-10-23  9:45       ` Mark Brown
2018-10-23  9:46       ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 20:04         ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2018-10-25 14:13           ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-26 17:36             ` Rob Herring
2018-10-26 21:15               ` Mark Brown
2018-11-01 10:18                 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-11-07 10:41                   ` Boris Brezillon
2018-11-07 23:56                     ` Michael Ellerman
2018-10-31 14:27             ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2018-10-31 18:34               ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23  9:02 ` Willy Tarreau
2018-10-23  9:15   ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23  9:23   ` Takashi Iwai
2018-10-23  9:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-10-23  9:17 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-10-23  9:47   ` Mark Brown
2018-10-23  9:19 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-23  9:25 ` Greg KH
2018-10-23  9:51 ` James Morris
2018-10-23  9:56 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2018-10-23 12:13 ` Ulf Hansson
2018-10-23 20:41   ` Jacek Anaszewski
2018-10-23 20:01 ` Olof Johansson
2018-10-24 22:21 ` Kees Cook

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=140f804f-81a0-a75a-1dc4-0f8baa50899e@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=boris.brezillon@bootlin.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    --subject='Re: Git pull ack emails..' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).