Re: git: 67783db661f8 - main - CONTRIBUTING: request only one submission type per change

We have thought about it. People are setting one (forgejo) up right now as
a proof of
concept. Contact me if you'd like to participate, or setup something
different to evaluate (past
calls for the git next generation working group didn't produce too many
interested parties
that could move the ball). In the long term, though, we'll have to do
something like Gerrit,
Gitlab, or Forgejo or similar. There's a lot of factors to consider for
each of the solutions
that are available, but it's hard to setup something even as a test
experiment to see if
it can make things better.

Github pull requests are my attempt to do something to move the needle on
the
project being so hard to contribute to in a way that won't get ignored.
There's plenty
of problems with it, but we're also getting some good code and contributors
from it.
Nothing is stopping other attempts, other than the time and effort it takes
to set them
up and administer them....

Warner

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 1:34 PM Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> wrote:

> Possibly slightly off-topic, but have we considered some other
> alternatives to Phabricator, like Gerrit
> <https://www.gerritcodereview.com/>?  (My opinion might be biased as we
> use Gerrit at $WORK).  I liked the review UI more (the context
> representation is cleaner compared to Phabricator and one can easily
> navigate between different amendment revisions of one change), and it is
> integrated with Git with a customizable workflow (e.g. can have complex
> submit requirements, like a change must be approved by a different person,
> has to pass certain presubmit workflow, etc.) and is actively developed and
> maintained (both Android and Chrome makes heavy use of Gerrit).
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:02 PM Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>
> wrote:
>
>>   Lexi,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:27:56PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:
>> L> as a non-committer src contributor, i've discussed this with imp@
>> quite
>> L> a bit and i think this should be phrased more strongly in favour of
>> L> using GitHub for commits.
>> L>
>> L> the current situation is that Phabricator is useless for non-committers
>> L> because 1) you have to know who can review your commit, and 2) once
>> your
>> L> commit is reviewed, someone has to commit it, and Phabricator doesn't
>> L> address this.
>>
>> The 1) is actually not as bad.  Phabricator has subscribtion hooks, and
>> many
>> committers have rules installed to get notifications of new reviews that
>> touch certain paths of code.
>>
>> The problem 2), IMHO, equally applies to github and Phabricator.
>>
>> L> i think it might make more sense to suggest that people submit all
>> L> patches via either GitHub or Bugzilla, and only use Phabricator if
>> L> specifically asked to.
>>
>> I don't agree here. Looks like we should address those phabricator
>> submissions that go unnoticed due to lack of maintainers of a code.
>> I don't think submitting same patch to github will improve visibility.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gleb Smirnoff
>>
>