> You are confusing theoretical problems with actual problems.
I don't think I do.
> Again, RavenDB as a case in point. I got 27 people contributing code, all
of
> them using the Pull Request model.
all 27 write code to the main trunk, or did they provide a patch of
some sort? This is a huge difference. I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm
saying you need a strict policy in place who is going to review the code
added to the main trunk. with patches provided which have to be applied to
the main trunk by a main committer, this is automatic. With pulling code all
over the place and auto-commits of changes, this is hardly the case: you
then actively have to review every change you commit.
> I had a single instance of having to prune someone else's changes (which
is
> what I meant by not happening very often).
Like I said, I'm likely very focused on code quality and that it
obeys strict guidelines, and will throw out 90% of code provided by others,
while others are more relaxed. It's however not even the case that there IS
a guideline for NH's sourcecode (we're not talking ravendb, but NH's code,
which is much bigger and most of it is ported code, so not designed by the
main committers).
Anyway, as I feel I'm barking to a tree and it's apparently not a
problem, why should I even care.
FB
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > a) I can pull specific commits
>
>
> yeah, like that's gonna work. Changes A, B, C and D. You can
> pull
> 'C' but you need A and B then as well.
>
>
> > b) I am going to reject any changes that I don't like.
> > c) I am going to review any code that I am pulling.
>
>
> and how many of the 'committers' will do so?
>
>
> > d) This scenario just doesn't occur all that often.
>
>
> that contradicts your claim that with github things will
> flourish:
> as there aren't suddenly a large group of new master feed
committers,
> the
> new stuff comes from people not committing to the main trunk but to
> their
> own branches which are pulled from.
>
>
> > e) Even if it does, I can ask you to create a specific branch just
> with
> your
> > changes.
>
>
> as this increases headaches, I am sure no-one will do this
> voluntairily. You then have to keep track which local copy contains
> which
> changes. It's not a small project, the sourcecode is huge, and the #
> of
> tests to keep track of therefore is huge too. you can't simply test
> things
> in a small clean-room, changes sometimes affect things all over the
> place.
>
>
> FB
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Frans,
> > > There are gate keepers, and they are responsible for doing
> that.
> > > I, for example, have about 50% chance of telling the user
> to fix
> > his code
> > > and 50% to fix the code myself.
> > > Remember, we are still talking about only committers being
> able to
> > merge
> > > code to the main repo.
> >
> >
> > sure, but if you say, pull from my repository (as you
> referred
> > to
> > that as a plus for git), you get my changes as well. If you
> commit
> > your
> > work, your code contains my changes as well, and thus you
> have to
> > verify my
> > code as well. This can add up if I pulled from someone out
> there and
> > didn't
> > verify the code.
> >
> > FB
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > What I wondered, and what hasn't been debated (at
> least not
> > this
> > > 'round'),
> > > is: how is code reviewing done? My experience with
> being an
> > OSS
> > > maintainer
> > > is that it's likely people give you 'patches' which
> are not
> > matching
> > > how
> > > things should be coded, are sometimes of poor
quality
> or cut
> > corners
> > > and you
> > > have to adjust them a bit to avoid a big pile of
> crapcode.
> > Maybe I'm
> > > too
> > > anal when it comes to code quality but as soon as
> people are
> > able to
> > > easily
> > > add patches to the trunk without review, it's hard
to
> fix
> > that later
> > > on.
> > > E.g. if a rule about 'document what you add' is in
> place,
> how
> > is
> > > checked
> > > that a committer indeed documented what's been
added?
> > >
> > > With a distributed system, it's harder to verify
what
> is
> > coming from
> > > where,
> > > if people are updating from non-master repositories:
> the
> > person who
> > > commits
> > > to the master has more to commit in that case than
> his own
> > changes:
> > > also the
> > > changes he pulled from a different source. How is
> verified
> > those are
> > > in the
> > > same quality?
> > >
> > > Or is there just 1 rule: if the tests run 'it's good
> enough'
> > ?
> > >
> > > FB
> > >
> > >
> > > > +1 for github
> > > >
> > > > github is much better option than codeplex+hg (in
> my
> > opinion)
> > > >
> > > > The intregated support and management of pull
> requests and
> > the
> > > whole
> > > > community aspect around the source code
> repositories is a
> > real
> > > boost to
> > > > contribution and easy managment. If you really
> prefer
> > mercurial
> > > than go
> > > with
> > > > bitbucket and you get some of the good this github
> brings.
> > > >
> > > > From a pure capability and tooling perspective I
> think
> > Mercurial
> > is
> > > a
> > > little
> > > > better (at least on windows) but I think that is
> > compensated by
> > the
> > > how
> > > > great github.
> > > >
> > > > just my 2 cents.
> > > > /Torkel
> > > >
> > > > On 3 Nov, 13:36, Fabio Maulo
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > > sorry NUnit is in launchpad.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Fabio Maulo
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > Moq svn (Google code)
> > > > > > NServiceBus svn + git (Source forge + GitHub)
> <==
> > Official in
> > > SVN
> > > > > > Rhino.ServiceBus git (GitHub) uNhAddIns Hg
> (Google
> > code)
> > > > > > SharpTestsEx Hg (Code Plex) ConfORM Hg (Google
> Code)
> > NUnit svn
> > > > > > (SourceForge) Castle git (GitHub) Spring svn
> (custom)
> > > NHibernate svn
> > > > > > (SourceForge) NHibernate.Validator svn
> (SourceForge)
> > > > > > NHibernate.Spatial svn (SourceForge)
> NHibernate.Search
> > svn
> > > > > > (SourceForge) NewtonJson svn (CodePlex)
Log4Net
> svn
> > (Apache)
> > > Lucene
> > > > > > svn (Apache) Re-Linq svn (custom + CodePlex
> only for
> > deploy)
> > > ANTLR
> > > > > > svn (Custom) SharpMap svn (Code Plex)
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Ayende Rahien
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> I mean popular in the sense that out of the
> .NET
> > projects
> > that
> > > I
> > > > > >> follow that uses DVCS, most use Git.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Fabio Maulo
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> I know lot of OSS using SVN more than Git...
> btw..
> > > > > >>> Mercurial is supported by Bitbucket, Google
> Code,
> > > SourceForge,
> > > > > >>> CodePlex Please give me a more detailed
> definition
> of
> > > "popular"
> > > > > >>> since its translation in Italian and in
> Spanish can
> > be
> > > interpreted
> > > > > >>> as "not used only by elite".
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Ayende
Rahien
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> Diego,
> > > > > >>>> I know of a LOT of OSS projects which are
> using Git
> > I know
> > > of
> > > > > >>>> very few using HG.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Diego
> Mijelshon
> > > > > >>>> <[email protected]
> > > > > >>>> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> Oren,
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> What stats do you use to say Git is more
> popular?
> > > > > >>>>> I think they both have lots of followers.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> I'm slightly biased towards HG, because it
> has an
> > easier
> > > > > >>>>> learning curve and it doesn't have the
> "non-native"
> > feel
> > of
> > > Git on
> > > > Windows.
> > > > > >>>>> Regarding the specific points you
> mentioned:
> aren't
> > those
> > > just
> > > > > >>>>> Github features whose current
> implementation you
> > like
> > > instead of
> > > > > >>>>> Hg/Git differences?
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> In any case, here's my 2c regarding
source:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> - There seems to be a consensus to move
> to a
> > DVCS.
> > > Nobody
> > > > > >>>>> wants to
> > > > > >>>>> stay with SVN
> > > > > >>>>> - As others said, after the release
> might be a
> > good
> > time
> > > to
> > > > > >>>>> do the
> > > > > >>>>> move
> > > > > >>>>> - IMO, the decision should be done
first
> by the
> > > committers
> > > > > >>>>> and, if
> > > > > >>>>> there isn't a clear winner, by the
> contributors.
> > How
> > > about a
> > > > poll?
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> And regarding the site (in no particular
> order):
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> - I've said it before: the current
state
> of NH
> > identity
> > > is
> > > > > >>>>> just
> > > > > >>>>> terrible. Searches for "nhibernate"
> "nhibernate
> > source"
> > > > > >>>>> "nhibernate bug
> > > > > >>>>> tracker" "nhibernate docs" and
> "nhibernate
> > binaries"
> > > should
> > > > > >>>>> all point to a
> > > > > >>>>> unified site.
> > > > > >>>>> - I don't have anything against Jira
per
> se,
> but
> > having
> > > it
> > > > > >>>>> redirect
> > > > > >>>>> to an IP is just unprofessional
> > > > > >>>>> - SourceForge still feels like 1999. I
> really
> > like
> > > Google
> > > > > >>>>> Code, I
> > > > > >>>>> dislike CodePlex, and GitHub is meh.
But
> the
> > decision
> > > should
> > > > > >>>>> be made by
> > > > > >>>>> those in charge of maintaining it.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> Diego
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 08:03, Ayende
Rahien
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>> Frans,
> > > > > >>>>>> Git is more popular than hg. And we
aren't
> > considering
> > > > > >>>>>> centralized SCM
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>> And yes, there is a HUGE difference
> between
> > sending a
> > > patch and
> > > > > >>>>>> sending a pull request.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>> a) it is *significantly* easier to handle
> a pull
> > request,
> > > > > >>>>>> because it is a single command, rather
> than a set
> > of
> > > operations
> > > > > >>>>>> b) it allows you to have your own fork
and
> easily
> > merge
> > > future
> > > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > > >>>>>> c) it means that Joe can pull from you,
> not just
> > from the
> > > > > >>>>>> master feed
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Frans
> Bouma
> > <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > I actually do have a problem with hg.
I
> think
> > that Git
> > > is:
> > > > > >>>>>>> > a) more popular
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> than what, subversion? Perforce?
> CVS?
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > b) GitHub has tremendous pull in terms
> of
> > encouraging
> > > > > >>>>>>> contributions.
> > > > > >>>>>>> > c) I saw a huge spike in the amount of
> people
> > > contributing
> > > > > >>>>>>> > once I
> > > > > >>>>>>> moved to
> > > > > >>>>>>> > github.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> I have a hard time believing
that
> the
> scc
> > system
> > > used
> > > > > >>>>>>> is of any relevance whether a developer
> is
> > capable of
> > > > > >>>>>>> contributing any code. I
> > > > > >>>>>>> mean:
> > > > > >>>>>>> it's not as if someone who changes some
> code in
> > his own
> > > branch
> > > > > >>>>>>> is suddenly able to commit those changes
> as
> well:
> > the
> > > change
> > > > > >>>>>>> has to be reviewed, tested, agreed upon
> and then
> > it's
> > > > > >>>>>>> committed. A svn patch is just as simple
> for
> that
> > than
> > > any
> > > > > >>>>>>> other patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> I don't deny what you saw on
> ravendb
> > stuff, I
> > just
> > > find
> > > > > >>>>>>> it a 'coincidence' rather than a
> correlated
> > event.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> FB
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Fabio
> Maulo
> > > > > >>>>>>> > <[email protected]>
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > And move the code in CodePlex...
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > --
> > > > > >>>>>>> > Fabio Maulo
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > El 02/11/2010, a las 16:38,
Jorge
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > > > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > > Hello there,
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > > I am in the process of
> downloading the
> > code
> > via
> > > SVN,
> > > > > >>>>>>> > and it
> > > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>> > taking
> > > > > >>>>>>> > > a very long time.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > > Can someone please enable Git
> repo in
> > > sourceforge,
> > > > > >>>>>>> > or
> > > > > >>>>>>> better yet,
> > > > > >>>>>>> > move
> > > > > >>>>>>> > > code to Github?
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > > Respectfully yours,
> > > > > >>>>>>> > > Jorge
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Fabio Maulo
> > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Fabio Maulo
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Fabio Maulo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
