Hello,
Any updates?
Having something to start hacking on would be great.
Thanks!
> On 25 Jan 2016, at 23:21, Ivan Vučica <i...@vucica.net> wrote:
>
> I'd be happy to help -- but first there's a need to have something to help on
> :-)
>
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016, 23:27 Sergio L. Pascual <s...@sinrega.org> wrote:
>> In the next weeks, I'll be doing a clean implementation of the changes,
>> in a sane way and following the coding style. Meanwhile, I've initiated
>> the process to assign the copyright to the FSF.
>>
>> I also plan to publish the ugly, dirty code somewhere, so you can take
>> an early look at it.
>>
>> On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 19:02 +0000, Ivan Vučica wrote:
>> > Please do let me know when you have something to review -- thanks! :)
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:41 PM Ivan Vučica <i...@vucica.net> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 7:04 PM Sergio L. Pascual <s...@sinrega.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 15:49 +0000, Ivan Vučica wrote:
>> > > > > I think it would be worth reviewing this code. If you agree,
>> > > > I'd love
>> > > > > a patch series applied on top of a particular Subversion commit
>> > > > > (possibly published as a series of Git commits on top of a
>> > > > mirror
>> > > > > created by Gregory). Each patch should tackle one self-
>> > > > contained task
>> > > > > ("git add -i" is awesome). Alternatively, each Git branch
>> > > > should
>> > > > > tackle one task, and could be collapsed into a single patch
>> > > > (i.e.
>> > > > > Subversion commit).
>> > > >
>> > > > I like the idea of linking git commits to self-contained tasks.
>> > > > In
>> > > > fact, is the strategy I use for all my repos, both personal and
>> > > > professional (in this case, we do SCRUM, and each commit should
>> > > > reference a bug/task/improvement ticket).
>> > > This is an approach I'm fine with.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Bundling a bunch of changes of a branch into a single one doesn't
>> > > > sound
>> > > > as good, though. That could only mean that you have a really
>> > > > broken
>> > > > commit policy for your git repo, and that you need this to make
>> > > > some
>> > > > sense of it ;-)
>> > > This was mentioned having in mind the approach that people might
>> > > have: commit possibly broken things as you go, keep them on a
>> > > branch, then consider the "pull request" (with 20, 30 smaller
>> > > commits) as the final product. For purposes of GNUstep, however,
>> > > not a "pull request" but a "patch" should be considered the final
>> > > product. This means "if you commonly do pull request, it'd be
>> > > preferable to squash it first".
>> > >
>> > > Why? Two reasons:
>> > >
>> > > - We still use Subversion
>> > > - your commits will spam watchers and history with many commit
>> > > notifications (e.g. via email or RSS)
>> > > - or they will get squashed (which watchers will probably prefer)
>> > >
>> > > - I would like to use Gerrit to review your changes.
>> > > - Gerrit has a concept of a 'change' (approximately, one
>> > > Subversion commit or Github/Bitbucket/pick_code_hosting_site pull
>> > > request)
>> > > - Each change track the history of the change as it is being
>> > > reviewed
>> > > - Each item in the history is called a 'patch set'
>> > > (approximately, full diff from the base commit -- think 'squashed
>> > > development history')
>> > >
>> > > So it's a different workflow than I would use for a personal small
>> > > project, which amounts to "record much of history so you can
>> > > revert! use branches to avoid breaking master!".
>> > >
>> > > I'd be fine with not using Gerrit to review, but we'll still need
>> > > to deal with Subversion, which will lose much of the useful
>> > > metadata anyway (e.g. when was the commit made).
>> > >
>> > > So I'd still like to /kindly ask/ for medium-sized patches amenable
>> > > to being submitted via Subversion -- or Git branches that are
>> > > squashable. :-)
>> > >
>> > > (I'm only kindly asking, because if this is not acceptable, I don't
>> > > want procedure to prevent something as useful as this from coming
>> > > in.)
>> > >
>> > > > That said, moving everything (repos, issue tracking, milestone
>> > > > management and even CI) to a self-hosted Gitlab instance (or some
>> > > > other
>> > > > similar, FOSS tool) would surely make the life of both
>> > > > maintainers and
>> > > > contributors a lot easier. I know is somehow inappropriate to say
>> > > > this,
>> > > > being a newcomer, but hey, you asked :-P
>> > > We have a migration path to Git and it's going to be executed Real
>> > > Soon Now.
>> > >
>> > > But, let's end the discussion here to avoid the occurrence of
>> > > another (sadly toxic) centithread.
>> > >
>> > > > > Additionally -- because reviewed code is easier to review when
>> > > > > executed -- could you prepare setup instructions so I can more
>> > > > easily
>> > > > > build and run this? My desktop is Ubuntu 14.04; my
>> > > > understanding is
>> > > > > that I will need to run Weston under X11 (Nvidia drivers I use
>> > > > are
>> > > > > proprietary blobs; I haven't tried setting up X-less Wayland
>> > > > thus
>> > > > > far).
>> > > >
>> > > > Weston has a variety of its own backends, so you can run in under
>> > > > X11,
>> > > > directly on FB/DRM, or under another Wayland compositor.
>> > > >
>> > > > To run it you'll just need to build wayland-protocol, wayland and
>> > > > weston (the forked one). Probably, there should a page in the
>> > > > wiki
>> > > > explaining this, among some description of its design and
>> > > > internals.
>> > > I'm mainly requesting some tl;dr instructions to minimize time
>> > > it'll take me to set up a development/review environment.
>> > >
>> > > I've only toyed with running Weston available under Ubuntu 14.04,
>> > > so I have no experience building it (my understanding is that I'll
>> > > need a patched version?), and I have no experience running Wayland
>> > > apps. So if you can get me from "empty Ubuntu homedir" to "gnustep
>> > > under wayland", that'd be great.
>> > >
>> > > (Of course, reasonable granularity of steps :-) I can hopefully
>> > > quickly resolve some build issues as long as I have general
>> > > requirements and steps in front of me.)
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Have you filled copyright assignment forms with FSF? This would
>> > > > be
>> > > > > necessary to import your code into GNUstep itself.
>> > > >
>> > > > Not yet, but I filled them in the past for other projects (GNU
>> > > > Hurd,
>> > > > GNU Mach, and Glibc, I had a wild youth ;-), so this shouldn't be
>> > > > a
>> > > > problem.
>> > > \o/ Excellent.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
