Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:44 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > If we are going to take this stance, should we consider removing all > packages from the tree that have their upstream on github? > Considering that we allow even outright proprietary software in portage which isn't distributed at all (copy file from CD to distfiles), we're obviously not going to be concerned about upstreams on github. Gentoo's social contract is GENTOO'S social contract. It governs what we do, and it doesn't say that we don't accept proprietary software. It says that we won't DEPEND on proprietary software for our operations or for anything essential to using Gentoo. As I already said - I think Github is a gray area. I'd like to see us working on an internal workflow tool that is friendly to outsiders like Gerrit or whatever. I'd see Github as a useful alternative, or as an interim solution, but I'd really hate to establish it as the long-term repository for something that is part of Gentoo without actively pursuing plans to move it to an FOSS platform. That's just my personal opinion though - others really don't want to touch it at all, and I can't fault them too much since it is contrary to our social contract. I'm a pragmatist, but I am charged with helping to uphold the social contract as a Trustee, and right now there is no official FOSS long-term solution. On the list of threats to the org though, I think that getting our main repository onto git in the first place is a higher priority than adopting tools like Gerrit/Github/etc. Right now most of what is left on that project rests on infra, so I don't want to beat up on them over not wanting to take on Java/etc. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:21:06AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: > Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow > > > > You keep saying this. What do you mean? > > I'll clarify! > > > > A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and > > nothing else. I don't see the problem. > > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it is > the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, then > github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are > enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at all. > (It works of course, but the repo history ends up looking horrible.) You can use git remotes on a github-based repository the same way you would on any git repository, and you can rebase branches before you merge them into master so you get only fast-forward merges. So, I do not see how the history is going to look horrible or how merge commits are "enforced for all external contributions". William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:08:21PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > > > > > > This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very > > sad to witness this once again. > > > > I have mixed feelings for this very reason. The concept of accepting > contributions on github is an EXCELLENT one. The problem is that it > is proprietary, which creates division, and could potentially create > problems down the road (no way to know - the sorts of things that can > happen anytime you depend on proprietary software). If github were to go down, all you would have to do is use a command similar to the one given in the first message of this thread to switch upstream to another location. I would argue that there really isn't a hard dependency on github in the same way there would be if they were using some centralized vcs such as svn. I think this is a pretty weak argument for systems that use distributed vcs's like git. > > I will take care of the github mirroring myself. For those who will > > merge pull requests on github, please take extra care to resolve the > > merges properly. > > > > So, first, THANK YOU! If we are going to take this stance, should we consider removing all packages from the tree that have their upstream on github? William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
Alexander Berntsen posted on Mon, 13 May 2013 14:42:58 +0200 as excerpted: > On 13/05/13 14:38, Greg KH wrote: [ Reinserting original quote of Alexander Berntsen ] >>> A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting >>> and nothing else. >>> >> Linux does not use GitHub for anything, but a lot of users do use the >> copy of the kernel tree on GitHub for their own development, which has >> nothing to do with the main Linux kernel developer workflow. > > I misremembered a discussion Linus had in which he said GitHub was great > for hosting (but terrible for stuff like commit messages). Thanks for > correcting me. > > My point about using GitHub for hosting only still stands. Greg KH, like I originally did, may have taken the original quote with quite a different meaning than you intended. I originally parsed the quote as: Linux uses nothing else but github ... when you apparently meant... Linux uses github (purely) for hosting (that is as a mirror), not for anything other functions. I was /this/ close to posting an objection, when from reading the replies I realized the latter meaning was apparently intended, not the former. It would appear that Greg KH parsed the former meaning as well, and replied as I /almost/ did. It's probably good to clear up the possible misunderstanding either way, tho, lest any rumors get started about "the next bitkeeper" and having a big-name kernel guy refuting that is about the best way possible to do so. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:32:05 +0200 Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 2013 00:24:09 +0200 > Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote: > > > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it > > > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, > > > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are > > > enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at > > > all. > > > > Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted > > on GitHub. And for the record I have not had problems with messy > > merges when commiting pull requests. > > Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day writing > a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of the target > package. When I presented a first git-format-patch I was ask to do a > github pull request instead. So I asked why not git-am? The answer was > - don't be a *beep*. As a result the package never got fixed and I > outright ignore any repo not hosted on Gentoo infra. Once I found a bug in an ebuild. But unfortunately that ebuild was stored in a CVS repo, so etc etc. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 13/05/13 14:38, Greg KH wrote: > Linux does not use GitHub for anything, but a lot of users do use > the copy of the kernel tree on GitHub for their own development, > which has nothing to do with the main Linux kernel developer > workflow. I misremembered a discussion Linus had in which he said GitHub was great for hosting (but terrible for stuff like commit messages). Thanks for correcting me. My point about using GitHub for hosting only still stands. - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQ39IACgkQRtClrXBQc7VizwEAkgYzCZOTO6dPO7Y2j594Z/8j az6l1qrjWA2j9LiUf7IA/RfA+QGbp9Y+p97DoxX+Qr3BrhE/0XkrZo10YQJDlN++ =b0s3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:12:19AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote: > > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow > You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including > Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the > problem. Linux does not use GitHub for anything, but a lot of users do use the copy of the kernel tree on GitHub for their own development, which has nothing to do with the main Linux kernel developer workflow. Please don't confuse the two. thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 13/05/13 09:40, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > Don't know why it would be relevant. Also I intentionally didn't > mention any names and wont do so on this list. Feel free to ask me > in private if you have a good reason. If a developer is behaving like that, it is in the interest of Gentoo that everybody knows who did it and why. For the record, I offered a patch to a GitHub-hosted Gentoo project a few days ago, and the maintainer asked me how I wanted to send the patch, offering me a nigh-plethora of ways... (I uplodaded it to my homepage, he wgot and git am'd it.) - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQmngACgkQRtClrXBQc7U5vgD/blu1+IOeUppaFqiONOzKAEOQ 66F8fLE1SYVsEG5ZkJsA/RXbrcddXneUoXRFoPQckNLlzHBwRnfiGuDoZ5LqCCrN =Tui3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:07:21 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 13/05/13 08:32, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > > Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day > > writing a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of > > the target package. When I presented a first git-format-patch I was > > ask to do a github pull request instead. So I asked why not git-am? > > The answer was - don't be a *beep*. As a result the package never > > got fixed and I outright ignore any repo not hosted on Gentoo > > infra. > Who was this? Don't know why it would be relevant. Also I intentionally didn't mention any names and wont do so on this list. Feel free to ask me in private if you have a good reason.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 13/05/13 00:37, Peter Stuge wrote: >> And for the record I have not had problems with messy merges when >> commiting pull requests. > As I wrote: It works fine but doesn't scale; the mess is that you > always get a merge commit, which is usually unneccessary for > smaller contributions such as those from users, as opposed to > larger ones spanning more commits and/or branches worked on over > longer time from developers. You don't always get merge commits. I have committed pull requests without merge commits. See wking's email. - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQkb0ACgkQRtClrXBQc7XRUgEAtMuv081P9CVOLx07Ckk8ydCv RydQq5z983v3ps15vGIA/2oLQ63PzWIeISJlzH2fz/TPq6iYrVdTaiCFPhpYjcKq =wRDo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 13/05/13 08:32, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day > writing a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of > the target package. When I presented a first git-format-patch I was > ask to do a github pull request instead. So I asked why not git-am? > The answer was - don't be a *beep*. As a result the package never > got fixed and I outright ignore any repo not hosted on Gentoo > infra. Who was this? - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQkSkACgkQRtClrXBQc7UN4QD/QzGy/KuY6Of7VgUfVR/nJNsV Q9etYTIG+nVoEQZztfEA/RAxDgX0mfsvpAIww8ln5IHovMMTGNGGP8G08LbpQAk0 =QfbB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Mon, 13 May 2013 00:24:09 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote: > > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it > > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, > > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are > > enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at > > all. > > Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted > on GitHub. And for the record I have not had problems with messy > merges when commiting pull requests. Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day writing a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of the target package. When I presented a first git-format-patch I was ask to do a github pull request instead. So I asked why not git-am? The answer was - don't be a *beep*. As a result the package never got fixed and I outright ignore any repo not hosted on Gentoo infra.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On 12 May 2013 20:34, Markos Chandras wrote: [...] > Besides, most fixes come from users (maybe not the actual patches but > they spot most of the problems) so providing an easier way for them to > contribute is preferred. Moreover, github provides other facilities Is it easier because they already have github accounts or ...? > such as code reviews, which the Gentoo's gitolite interface does not have. GNOME and others provide Splinter as a review system on bugzilla. Coupled with git bz, that should make the patch submission + review process comparably simple. Thoughts? Cheers, -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:24:09AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote: > > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it > > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, > > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are > > enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at > > all. > > Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted on > GitHub. And for the record I have not had problems with messy merges > when commiting pull requests. You can also merge pull requests locally and format them however you like (including fast forward merges). GitHub automatically closes the PR when it's tip commit lands in the target branch. My major gripe with PRs is folks sometimes add lots of good details to the PR summary, and then have little one-line commit messages :p. If you can convince them to incorperate motivation, etc., in the commit messages, than the fact that code came in via a PR is irrelevant. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it > > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, > > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are > > enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at all. > > Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted > on GitHub. Of course, but 1. github users will not send email to a github project and 2. if pull requests are rejected then github is not the primary point of contact so then there is no problem. > And for the record I have not had problems with messy merges > when commiting pull requests. As I wrote: It works fine but doesn't scale; the mess is that you always get a merge commit, which is usually unneccessary for smaller contributions such as those from users, as opposed to larger ones spanning more commits and/or branches worked on over longer time from developers. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote: > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are > enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at > all. Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted on GitHub. And for the record I have not had problems with messy merges when commiting pull requests. - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQFokACgkQRtClrXBQc7WBzQD/YVkIfIUT/meLZOqXUxItU15v 34rmpFFrB7j5LM455oEA/0R6XCoMAWnaMd6t+6l3clnJKa0T0jt731B//qeTBY59 =G1bz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow > > You keep saying this. What do you mean? I'll clarify! > A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and > nothing else. I don't see the problem. There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at all. (It works of course, but the repo history ends up looking horrible.) //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote: > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the problem. - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQE8MACgkQRtClrXBQc7VatQD/U4JiZzXYNx8i7H3rs/dBmhkT QZkPS0LiysoCM1m8dtQBAJcZomDANi5HxzXxhTaVtW0zugLkXcSU8nXWlGLUuuZx =5mug -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On 13/05/2013 04:24, Peter Stuge wrote: Michael Palimaka wrote: I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not. I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something java-based there's not much we can do about that. We (well you) could try to join infra. Infra? Nobody ever goes in, and nobody ever goes out. :-D Another option that looks nice is GitLab. How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github. That's the point. :-) Ok, do you know if it also enforces some particular workflow like github does, or if there are knobs to twiddle? I haven't used it for anything useful, but there is a demo instance[1]. What sort of workflow do you feel is enforced by github? I haven't personally felt constrained by it in the past. [1]: http://demo.gitlab.com/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
Michael Palimaka wrote: >> I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit >> for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does >> and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not. > > I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something java-based > there's not much we can do about that. We (well you) could try to join infra. >>> Another option that looks nice is GitLab. >> >> How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github. > > That's the point. :-) Ok, do you know if it also enforces some particular workflow like github does, or if there are knobs to twiddle? //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
Theo Chatzimichos wrote: > > > Another option that looks nice is GitLab. > > > > How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github. > > Don't ask, just go for it! That's not very helpful? I'm happy to expand on my experience with Gerrit, and I'll gladly answer specific questions if I can. > It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad. Great! Have you run it in production or in a lab? Did you encounter any non-obvious issues? > I agree that github is sucky, but I don't think rejecting GitLab > just because it looks exactly like Github makes sense. Where did you get the idea that anyone is rejecting GitLab? Especially surprising that you think that *I* would reject GitLab, since I'm not even a developer. (Comparing github with Java doesn't make much sense.) > Look at what the application does and how it works first. Yes indeed, obviously I tried that, but the gitlab.org webpage doesn't have a lot of information beyond the github-like screenshots. Hence my question to the list, where perhaps someone can talk about gitlab based on their experience. All pointers to better resources are surely appreciated not only by me. //Peter pgpR0SLdYg_j4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Sunday 12 of May 2013 19:20:03 Peter Stuge wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: > > Gerrit > > .. > > I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to > > start messing with it personally. > > Go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad. > > Michael Palimaka wrote: > > I believe Gerrit has been suggested before and rejected because it > > relies on Java, and ReviewBoard because it "sucks". > > I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit > for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does > and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not. > > > Another option that looks nice is GitLab. > > How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github. Don't ask, just go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad. I agree that github is sucky, but I don't think rejecting GitLab just because it looks exactly like Github makes sense. Look at what the application does and how it works first. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On 13/05/2013 03:20, Peter Stuge wrote: I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not. I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something java-based there's not much we can do about that. Another option that looks nice is GitLab. How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github. That's the point. :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
Rich Freeman wrote: > Gerrit > .. > I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to > start messing with it personally. Go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad. Michael Palimaka wrote: > I believe Gerrit has been suggested before and rejected because it > relies on Java, and ReviewBoard because it "sucks". I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not. > Another option that looks nice is GitLab. How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github. //Peter
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote: > This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very > sad to witness this once again. I've nothing at all against mirroring the repository at github, or against accepting pull requests there. However, I think that we shouldn't rely on third-party servers running proprietary software for hosting important parts of our documentation. BTW, we had a very similar discussion two years ago about the PMS repository, where moving to github had been suggested, too. > I restored +w to g.o.g.o. Thank you. Ulrich
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On 13/05/2013 02:08, Rich Freeman wrote: Second, I think this really points to there being value for something like Gerrit available on Gentoo, which might be the best of both worlds. I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to start messing with it personally. I'd be interested in whether anybody is familiar with it and doesn't feel that it is an appropriate tool for us to use. If the consensus is overwhelmingly positive then it would be great to have it deployed on Gentoo infra. And yes, I realize that this is easy to type, but hard work to implement. I see dual-workflows like Github as an interim solution. Personally, I'm not entirely opposed to even a Github-only solution as an interim if we were actively working on something FOSS-based, however I realize that not all might agree on that. Rich I am not 100% certain, but I believe Gerrit has been suggested before and rejected because it relies on Java, and ReviewBoard because it "sucks". Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > > > This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very > sad to witness this once again. > I have mixed feelings for this very reason. The concept of accepting contributions on github is an EXCELLENT one. The problem is that it is proprietary, which creates division, and could potentially create problems down the road (no way to know - the sorts of things that can happen anytime you depend on proprietary software). > I will take care of the github mirroring myself. For those who will > merge pull requests on github, please take extra care to resolve the > merges properly. > So, first, THANK YOU! Second, I think this really points to there being value for something like Gerrit available on Gentoo, which might be the best of both worlds. I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to start messing with it personally. I'd be interested in whether anybody is familiar with it and doesn't feel that it is an appropriate tool for us to use. If the consensus is overwhelmingly positive then it would be great to have it deployed on Gentoo infra. And yes, I realize that this is easy to type, but hard work to implement. I see dual-workflows like Github as an interim solution. Personally, I'm not entirely opposed to even a Github-only solution as an interim if we were actively working on something FOSS-based, however I realize that not all might agree on that. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> However, the write access removed because of potential conflicts >> between g.o.g.o and github. If you can guarantee me that people will >> not mess things up and not commit only to one of the to remotes, >> then we can enable write access again. > > I for my part won't push anything to a devmanual repo hosted at > github. As this presumably means that I won't be able to contribute > any more, I've now removed myself from the devmanual mail alias. I am curious to know your reasoning here. I can understand wanting to keep an up-to-date copy on Gentoo infra, but I'm not so clear on the outright refusal to push to Github as well. Do you simply not wish to create an account there? Can you explain a bit more?
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/12/2013 04:48 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote: > >>> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to >>> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo." > >>> Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server >>> software wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools >>> for a central piece of Gentoo documentation? > >> The repository is still accessible in >> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org and read-only access is still >> available. > > In what way is removing write access different from deprecating > the repository? > >> However, the write access removed because of potential conflicts >> between g.o.g.o and github. If you can guarantee me that people >> will not mess things up and not commit only to one of the to >> remotes, then we can enable write access again. > > I for my part won't push anything to a devmanual repo hosted at > github. As this presumably means that I won't be able to > contribute any more, I've now removed myself from the devmanual > mail alias. > > Ulrich > This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very sad to witness this once again. I restored +w to g.o.g.o. I will take care of the github mirroring myself. For those who will merge pull requests on github, please take extra care to resolve the merges properly. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJRj7s9XxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQzNTVDNDczOUYzRjJEMTRGNDRGMzU2RkMw OUJGNEY1NEMyQkE3RjNDAAoJEAm/T1TCun88pyAP/jIgt8P2s0Bpmus9AenfBWNn PsdjvxOu7Rs6YGq4tr9Ol4fFKD47BZIVdGHUlcRmbzcV3bB3YstqUHEFbtupvrEK umQrzsdUHkCDfejeA+v/Ggy3FdHHPeFphGI+W9BfMJZBYDFpcjl0Dt8YyKdPQTL6 Sy4Roo13nQsE9p3pJUVctprydNFcNGzULxA3fj0IcvXl6NxD/m4YSiEIgnQNUjT0 ee05OTcYvNX5RzyREsR/snERZExnfnNX9Bf8Z6yxQWNlAt5YlbCnLuk+6ye11x9P J6rynxehRtR7lvRb54xGBs1Ni6H2NcDGnWJZo6CcajWF40htx8XgkynoMsrujPCt lzKKrrQ0yO9d02GOLYaGwQ7IjgCUA10pON5G1QytPCqeLPOPDtnZjbh82eOpvghf HTooqVIBKf4U9gs2nY7s4Ky/39eB5Toi1xUD5jtayxiRLtotPZ7KKdNx98xyL4Fj JcLPisl5Y41/dPyGXJ6lW3KmDajry/oDrIKk7l1kcvtebUJGxnx3kYtrJRSmNciA pXGAYFtOXnACrAYj6mvJfilh5QT7PiO/r1XUbvwacAmKnhPRMsZnG3EtOKuOn/x8 pAnmgtoBy1EfGVuseSQJEe/hjQy2q7z/mcqYA0En1UAMgFRCyeuZNdtQE/lNLZy7 g6Xawl5NY7P0PNlJCN+F =7f1w -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote: >> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to >> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo." >> Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server >> software wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for a >> central piece of Gentoo documentation? > The repository is still accessible in http://git.overlays.gentoo.org > and read-only access is still available. In what way is removing write access different from deprecating the repository? > However, the write access removed because of potential conflicts > between g.o.g.o and github. If you can guarantee me that people will > not mess things up and not commit only to one of the to remotes, > then we can enable write access again. I for my part won't push anything to a devmanual repo hosted at github. As this presumably means that I won't be able to contribute any more, I've now removed myself from the devmanual mail alias. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Richard Yao wrote: >> Last time I looked, github's server software wasn't open source. >> Why should we use non-free tools for a central piece of Gentoo >> documentation? > The last that I looked, the Verilog designs and other hardware > schematics were not open source either, but we depend on them anyway. > How is github different from any other hardware? I don't care about their hardware. At least parts of their software are proprietary, though. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
Markos Chandras wrote: > The repository is still accessible in http://git.overlays.gentoo.org > and read-only access is still available. However, the write access > removed because of potential conflicts between g.o.g.o and github. > If you can guarantee me that people will not mess things up and not > commit only to one of the to remotes, then we can enable write access > again. It makes sense to only have one main repository, but I don't think it makes sense to make that github. > Besides, most fixes come from users (maybe not the actual patches but > they spot most of the problems) so providing an easier way for them to > contribute is preferred. Have you operated or used Gerrit? I think it's a really great tool to kill two birds with one stone; commits can be reviewed, iterated, accepted and rejected easily and all that is required to contribute (push a commit to Gerrit) is an OpenID and an SSH key. > Moreover, github provides other facilities such as code reviews, > which the Gentoo's gitolite interface does not have. It's easy to find reasons *against* something. I think it's more important to consider respective benefits. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
On 05/12/2013 09:15 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote: > >> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your >> local trees using the following command: > >> Developers: git remote set-url origin >> g...@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org > >> Read-only: git remote set-url origin >> git://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org > > Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to > deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo." > > Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server software > wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for a central > piece of Gentoo documentation? > > Ulrich > >> [1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=summary >> [2] https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org > The last that I looked, the Verilog designs and other hardware schematics were not open source either, but we depend on them anyway. How is github different from any other hardware? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/12/2013 02:15 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote: > >> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update >> your local trees using the following command: > >> Developers: git remote set-url origin >> g...@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org > >> Read-only: git remote set-url origin >> git://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org > > Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to > deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo." > > Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server > software wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for a > central piece of Gentoo documentation? > > Ulrich > >> [1] >> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=summary >> >> [2] https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org > The repository is still accessible in http://git.overlays.gentoo.org and read-only access is still available. However, the write access removed because of potential conflicts between g.o.g.o and github. If you can guarantee me that people will not mess things up and not commit only to one of the to remotes, then we can enable write access again. Besides, most fixes come from users (maybe not the actual patches but they spot most of the problems) so providing an easier way for them to contribute is preferred. Moreover, github provides other facilities such as code reviews, which the Gentoo's gitolite interface does not have. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJRj69qXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQzNTVDNDczOUYzRjJEMTRGNDRGMzU2RkMw OUJGNEY1NEMyQkE3RjNDAAoJEAm/T1TCun88UEoP/005Z4Oabo5R0OpHI+wWEABx cRNkRqg9CJGqsyvPkO5ln94bYjpwgV/fg26snQOS3yFEO2E4PTBmXXkyWVYwhXZX NcBpqevFu0fTMt0p54zWq/zWse7rot/iZPcNeGtr/N6CV5lsrEjH+LjJpp3LMNfQ +WVgY2Iv3T7nmvCh4iSZbHYMar1vBVXLsDyxE2pGwcJauE5i7fZpVhx8f2Ma8tB3 yLObZh3Nx3v6IB6//lfWhytfF1QRpvHLgI5MsFjzVnWtRKenXnsFrApu+rUQPMR3 qIVzK+QjgLXxWbiT4CIs71utmamsJUvUhxvVOPJbVrz1JjO7bOolP+E7PlU7guu3 iARFcyOyHqzMxVLopgm7IKnrzKosBtp8r336pnJl+cTev3Xgrc6FMRUfkXeUPlFX rXP4MSGu1/Ab4tdVVakpa0KvXG8OCrPB/2bBCl7N5KRVYFpSQrGkkP/dAVupZTZh uPXnrqzHkRDcdTH0GN0L1/NmJe5IdsPCX7RFS28FOL/wEf6WIewOBZgTGvuNaahT mqONBO9VXGu2w4nQtCVK0lWfyNIsHB2nJyOKDtQZWuajbQYihkpS86IHhNMvS0aU v0qDs0yEkjpeSHb73T9xkDpN1amTo8l4IWmWz8vruPTZbjXldiBGGhgobM+K5tM2 auZWwWx3srwbl5aSZx1a =qF97 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 12 May 2013 09:12:03 -0400 as excerpted: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Markos Chandras > wrote: >> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. > > No objections to mirroring it there, and accepting pull requests there. > However, would an outright move be contrary to our social contract? > [quoted] > > That said, git itself is FOSS, and moving it back is not difficult > should bad things happen (though any in-progress pull-requests/etc would > be lost). The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself. Not sure if > others feel strongly about it. To me it depends upon how dependent upon github people actually become. If the primary workflow remains in people's distributed git repos, in git, then more copies "out there" including on github is simply more redundancy, As Linus likes to say, "real men" don't make backups, they post it to the net and let the dozens (in his case, likely tens of thousands, but...) of net copies be their backups. As soon as github going down becomes a problem, however, or as soon as pull requests need to go thru github, then it's a problem, "depending upon" according to the social contract. Arguably, letting github be the primary/only public link is problematic in that very way, since at that point github going down is a problem for those using the public link. OTOH, just having a mirror there and letting people submit pull requests via github as well as directly, shouldn't be a problem. IMO of course. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote: > The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your > local trees using the following command: > Developers: git remote set-url origin > g...@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org > Read-only: git remote set-url origin > git://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo." Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server software wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for a central piece of Gentoo documentation? Ulrich > [1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=summary > [2] https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
