On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 16:08 +0200, Marius Brehler wrote: > Hi everybody, > > On 05/24/2017 09:17 AM, Guilherme Amadio wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:11:03AM +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > Dear users of the sci overlay, > > > we've recently rearranged the git setup. The current sci setup is > > > now > > > exactly like the main tree setup, namely: > > > > > > 1. The authoritative repo is the one hosted by infra > > > (git://anongit.gentoo.org/proj/sci.git) > > > 2. All commits to the sci repo will be synced over to Github > > > automatically, in ONE DIRECTION only. This means all the dual > > > HEAD > > > merging is obsolete now. > > > 3. The Github repo is now meant as a (friendly) interface to > > > potential > > > contributors. > > > 4. As a new QA policy, merge commits in the overlay are banned > > > now. The > > > sci overlay has much lower contention than the main repository, > > > such > > > that you can realistically always avoid merge commits, even for > > > large > > > batches of commits. This will require you to rebase your commits > > > on top > > > of remote: > > > > > > git pull --rebase=preserve > > > > > > I will likely further tighten the QA standards of the repository, > > > due > > > to a history of poor COMMITMSGs and other QA violations. This is > > > supposed to be a testing ground for the main repo, where plans > > > are to > > > also introduce such QA measures. > > > > > > Furthermore, I am considering requiring full GPG-signed commits > > > for the > > > overlay, and for this I would like to get some input. I believe > > > this > > > prepares contributors for eventually joining Gentoo. For low- > > > volume > > > contributors not wanting to join, we can always merge pull > > > requests > > > from Github. Ideas? Are you opposed to this? > > > > I welcome all these changes. If we can help in educating people on > > the > > more tricky things, like signing with a GPG key, even better. I > > have > > some ebuilds I use personally now that I will try to add in the > > next > > few days to the overlay. > > > > That said, once we reach good enough quality of ebuilds in the > > overlay, > > we should start just moving them to the main tree. Gentoo is used > > by > > quite a few physicists (myself included) and other scientists, so > > eliminating the need for an extra overlay would be nice. I remember > > having problems with things like blas/atlas and eselect due to > > divergences with the main tree in not so distant past. Also, using > > overlays with prefix is not always a seamless experience. > > > > I'm not saying the overlay should go away, but just be a staging > > area > > for scientific packages before they land on the main tree. What are > > your > > thoughts on this? > > > > Cheers, > > —Guilherme > > > > I actually agree and support the idea. However, I recently noticed > that > I no longer have the permission to close issues in github. Is it > possible to get those for sci again? > Before the announcement, I was using git.gentoo.org:proj/sci.git, for > which I have sufficient rights. Is there any difference, or rather > should I switch over to anongit.gentoo.org/proj/sci.git? > Best Regards > > Marius
Which brings me to the next point - that thing shouldn't even be there. The Github issue tracker was used in ancient days, and I'd much rather people use bugzie than having 3 divergent issue trackers. I will add you in the mean time.
