On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 16:08 +0200, Marius Brehler wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> On 05/24/2017 09:17 AM, Guilherme Amadio wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:11:03AM +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > Dear users of the sci overlay,
> > > we've recently rearranged the git setup. The current sci setup is
> > > now
> > > exactly like the main tree setup, namely:
> > >
> > > 1. The authoritative repo is the one hosted by infra
> > > (git://anongit.gentoo.org/proj/sci.git)
> > > 2. All commits to the sci repo will be synced over to Github
> > > automatically, in ONE DIRECTION only. This means all the dual
> > > HEAD
> > > merging is obsolete now.
> > > 3. The Github repo is now meant as a (friendly) interface to
> > > potential
> > > contributors.
> > > 4. As a new QA policy, merge commits in the overlay are banned
> > > now. The
> > > sci overlay has much lower contention than the main repository,
> > > such
> > > that you can realistically always avoid merge commits, even for
> > > large
> > > batches of commits. This will require you to rebase your commits
> > > on top
> > > of remote:
> > >
> > > git pull --rebase=preserve
> > >
> > > I will likely further tighten the QA standards of the repository,
> > > due
> > > to a history of poor COMMITMSGs and other QA violations. This is
> > > supposed to be a testing ground for the main repo, where plans
> > > are to
> > > also introduce such QA measures.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I am considering requiring full GPG-signed commits
> > > for the
> > > overlay, and for this I would like to get some input. I believe
> > > this
> > > prepares contributors for eventually joining Gentoo. For low-
> > > volume
> > > contributors not wanting to join, we can always merge pull
> > > requests
> > > from Github. Ideas? Are you opposed to this?
> >
> > I welcome all these changes. If we can help in educating people on
> > the
> > more tricky things, like signing with a GPG key, even better. I
> > have
> > some ebuilds I use personally now that I will try to add in the
> > next
> > few days to the overlay.
> >
> > That said, once we reach good enough quality of ebuilds in the
> > overlay,
> > we should start just moving them to the main tree. Gentoo is used
> > by
> > quite a few physicists (myself included) and other scientists, so
> > eliminating the need for an extra overlay would be nice. I remember
> > having problems with things like blas/atlas and eselect due to
> > divergences with the main tree in not so distant past. Also, using
> > overlays with prefix is not always a seamless experience.
> >
> > I'm not saying the overlay should go away, but just be a staging
> > area
> > for scientific packages before they land on the main tree. What are
> > your
> > thoughts on this?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > —Guilherme
> >
>
> I actually agree and support the idea. However, I recently noticed
> that
> I no longer have the permission to close issues in github. Is it
> possible to get those for sci again?
> Before the announcement, I was using git.gentoo.org:proj/sci.git, for
> which I have sufficient rights. Is there any difference, or rather
> should I switch over to anongit.gentoo.org/proj/sci.git?
> Best Regards
>
> Marius
Which brings me to the next point - that thing shouldn't even be there.
The Github issue tracker was used in ancient days, and I'd much rather
people use bugzie than having 3 divergent issue trackers. I will add
you in the mean time.
