From nobody Tue Apr 23 19:44:40 2024 X-Original-To: dev-commits-src-all@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VPCJ65wJSz5HxVq for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:44:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-ej1-x629.google.com (mail-ej1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4VPCJ63BBXz4jBx for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:44:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-ej1-x629.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a55911bff66so505444966b.0 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1713901492; x=1714506292; darn=freebsd.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QBA3rCiZsTrs8ArT33wL16SqzNbHpYJ0TEJcwhm6CmY=; b=XozSuXdxm5OedgtkGwQFfZ2OshsVpD1n69OmVdytrry5y4np0q0lAiESPQmg9TSgQM yUOyVIIACgd0+cvsuqz/cFnETdObAy71hU7/x8rJmq8I5Jq63Ljz65YhTowRkCjTG1AP Yxletkfy2GYnL5BnC0NbuK60d18jzwkRTzyvW+V4lOaMCGuOYm9tMZwMIVmQR3fUXuWS AZi6pFvIP+SN25u4TQsGXHt9OE4oLumdlVc2AVprbwB8j/9AZOfi+fNgaEb3F0oZZ7Mb OJ9c3ESn1TOznGtuCXDiUvebHoPyovmFS4MZkbkfrPJ2KMJIiEIHNXnk9uBQLsAzI1uc eAvg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713901492; x=1714506292; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=QBA3rCiZsTrs8ArT33wL16SqzNbHpYJ0TEJcwhm6CmY=; b=I0LtyfWumgadBOEdcNVR6jkcidLiEaSDFHpyHI+4X2SJnL7vycww9BD8hk9Wmpv/es Fa/OzAy3IM4LMzxowET8s+4mMHnQlUkbIZkJ5cFD+zDdhTllBwnDeefh68zRlNxACOM4 MeacrfvGo1Vq/Vgg6q+kkjJWc+ST7dy+INKxJBX1s7gNkVxnW6tVmqOLwa+M6N+V1bWy KRCSyOAW8Eeor2aF0BI7r/kOr11IfV4ZhxDX/02pmztIfBVaQiEpzhut9WJLr2CEDHo9 lg060LgyUCONMXBCgeOj7YW3TftnQIP30wD9QThlUmVsRmk1feYVahGUO06g1xfwdCiK zpNA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU/J4g3/Z0beMi8CzAiZq+t+PX6JMxuGwbUIHGtw/ytkKM9KCELbfImox6Ktzh9A4HE1LZwlCsutXAzTnP84Xeg0rbRBSs+6lN+QNuP18Tb X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw53rBUVtvHWQcTxdZ29oOYSFYli760Rjl3IYzNsfPo3eJXMXOX c09aMq9v0ZKomBj9NhkyEiKI+tGKVf2RWD3Umu7zvHxU5RTKA9X0dXu3G2FbdgWFaavq5BCIBBf hHkKE9PKnsVEu8E11YrE+jaRCPHvvdzN0FqzDh9uN2tYvEQivd2A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEm55hFV3ivHxJaaA3c5IG10EPEnQqmpKkrD6sKHAg2o1DlZYjLk/Wwt/fWZ9jJz81KCEPDQhsO8X+DigR6wB0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4687:b0:a55:648f:3f03 with SMTP id a7-20020a170906468700b00a55648f3f03mr208906ejr.53.1713901492068; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:44:52 -0700 (PDT) List-Id: Commit messages for all branches of the src repository List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/dev-commits-src-all List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org Sender: owner-dev-commits-src-all@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202404181915.43IJFEoG020480@gitrepo.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 13:44:40 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: git: 67783db661f8 - main - CONTRIBUTING: request only one submission type per change To: Xin LI Cc: Gleb Smirnoff , Lexi Winter , Ed Maste , src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d821d0616c8c987" X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2a00:1450::/32, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4VPCJ63BBXz4jBx --0000000000009d821d0616c8c987 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=E2=80=AFPM Xin LI wrote: > Possibly slightly off-topic, but have we considered some other > alternatives to Phabricator, like Gerrit > ? (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 a= nd > maintained (both Android and Chrome makes heavy use of Gerrit). > > Cheers, > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:02=E2=80=AFPM Gleb Smirnoff > 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-committe= rs >> 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 >> > --0000000000009d821d0616c8c987 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We have thought about it. People are setting one (for= gejo) up right now as a proof of
concept. Contact me if you'd= like to participate, or setup something different to evaluate (past
<= div>calls for the git next generation working group didn't produce too = many interested parties
that could move the ball). In the long te= rm, though, we'll have to do something like Gerrit,
Gitlab, o= r 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 some= thing even as a test experiment to see if
it can make things bett= er.

Github pull requests are my attempt=C2=A0to do= something to move the needle on the
project being so hard to con= tribute 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 contri= butors from it.
Nothing is stopping other attempts, other than th= e time and effort it takes to set them
up and administer them....=

Warner

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 1:34=E2= =80=AFPM Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:
<= div dir=3D"ltr">
Possibly sli= ghtly off-topic, but have we considered some other alternatives to Phabrica= tor, like G= errit?=C2=A0 (My opinion might be biased as we use Gerrit at $WORK).=C2= =A0 I liked the review UI more (the context representation is cleaner compa= red 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, et= c.) and is actively developed and maintained (both Android and Chrome makes= heavy use of Gerrit).
=
Cheers,
<= /div>
O= n Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:02=E2=80=AFPM Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote:<= br>
=C2=A0 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-committe= rs
L> because 1) you have to know who can review your commit, and 2) once y= our
L> commit is reviewed, someone has to commit it, and Phabricator doesn&#= 39;t
L> address this.

The 1) is actually not as bad.=C2=A0 Phabricator has subscribtion hooks, an= d 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.<= br>

--
Gleb Smirnoff
--0000000000009d821d0616c8c987--