On 21 November 2017 at 15:07, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:21:52AM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
- Document the autoselect process
Information about about What, Why, and [ideally] How - analogous to the normal stable nominations. Insert reference to the process in the patch notification email.
I agree with this one, and it'll definitely happen. The story behind this is that this is all based on Julia Lawall's work which is well documented in a published paper here:
https://soarsmu.github.io/papers/icse12-patch.pdfI have modified inputs and process, but it essentially is very similar to what's described in that paper.
While I have no problem with sharing what I have so far, this is still very much work in progress, and things keep constantly changing based on comments I receive from reviewers and Greg, so I want to reach a more stable point before trying to explain things and change my mind the day after :)
If anyone is really interested in seeing the guts of this mess I currently have I can push it to github, but bear in mind that in it's current state it's very custom to the configuration I have, and is a borderline unreadable mix of bash scripts and LUA.
Ideally it'll all get cleaned up and pushed anyways once I feel comfortable with the quality of the process.
At first I would focus on What and Why. Getting that information out and publicising it via that blogs, G+, meetings, etc. is essential. Reference to the current [WIP or not] heuristics is nice but can follow-up in due time. A placeholder must be available though.
- Make the autoselect nominations _more_ distinct than the normal stable ones.
Maintainers will want to put more cognitive effort into the patches.
So this came up before, and the participants of that thread agreed that adding "AUTOSEL" in the patch prefix is sufficient. What else would you suggest adding?
Being consistent [with existing stable nominations style] is good, but first focus* should be on making it noticeable and distinct. In other words - do _not_ be consistent.
Flipping the order AUTOSEL PATCH, using WARN, NOTE or just dropping PATCH should help. People tend to read PATC..... /xx: ... last words of commit message.
Additionally, different template + a big note/warning in the email body is a good idea. Say: WARNING: This patch is nominated via the autosel procedure as defined at $ref.
HTH Emil
* Regardless if autosel patches default to "ACK to merge" or not.