Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 08:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel- list wrote: [...] > > > > > - git-bz attach equals to git push origin HEAD:fix2340issue, then > > > click create merge request. > > > > Does this rewrite the commit message to include the PR or bug > > number? > > No, as

GNOME and Debian usability testing, May 2017

Thought this might be interesting/useful to a wider GNOME audience: Weitergeleitete Nachricht Betreff: GNOME and Debian usability testing, May 2017 Datum: Mon, 15 May 2017 13:10:45 +0200 Von: intrigeri An: Jim Hall , Debian GNOME

Re: Paperwork / Gnome's dos and don'ts

Howdy! On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:57 AM wrote: > > b) Commercialization of Windows portage > > A while ago, I tried to sell the Windows version of Paperwork. It was > based on a 60 days trial > period + activation keys (the code is still visible on GitHub, but it is >

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 17:44 +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Mathieu Bridon > > wrote: >> > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:47 +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: >> > > IMO this

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > One-time contributions can be done entirely in the web UI, for example: One-time doesn’t necessarily mean trivial. What you describe is the workflow for a trivial change. One may still want to clone, compile, test

Re: Paperwork / Gnome's dos and don'ts

17 mai 2017 18:30 "Debarshi Ray" a écrit: > Hey, > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 09:55:15AM +, jfle...@kwain.net wrote: > >> - Libpillowfight (image processing): >> https://github.com/openpaperwork/libpillowfight >> >> In the long term, I will try to replace them by

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

Le mercredi 17 mai 2017 à 14:55 +, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik a > écrit : > > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me) > > > > Hi, > > > > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite > > complicated, I > > and Carlos

Re: Paperwork / Gnome's dos and don'ts

Hey, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 09:55:15AM +, jfle...@kwain.net wrote: > - Libpillowfight (image processing): > https://github.com/openpaperwork/libpillowfight > > In the long term, I will try to replace them by developing alternatives > based on GObject Introspection. For what it is worth,

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 17:44 +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Mathieu Bridon > wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:47 +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: > > > IMO this is a completely broken and over-complicated workflow. > > > For > > > long term

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:47 +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: >> IMO this is a completely broken and over-complicated workflow. For >> long term contributors, having their own remote can be >> understandable. >> But for

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:47 +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: > Hi, > […] > The typical workflow as advised by github (and therefore I believe > that's similar in gitlab), if not mistaken, is: Unless you have push privileges, in which case you'd just create a wip- or feature branch and make a merge

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:13 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > There are few by error. > The important cases are lineup-parameters used for uncrustify, and > the threatics part from gnome-builder. > However, we already spent time on implementing our own thing in the > past with git-archive-all

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:36:48PM +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:25:09PM +0200, Jehan Pagčs wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Carlos Soriano

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

There are few by error. The important cases are lineup-parameters used for uncrustify, and the threatics part from gnome-builder. However, we already spent time on implementing our own thing in the past with git-archive-all (GPLv3+) when meson couldn't handle it, so I would like to prevent this

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:20 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only > or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. That’s fair. > I'm also not opening the > can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions > (such

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:47 +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: > IMO this is a completely broken and over-complicated workflow. For > long term contributors, having their own remote can be > understandable. > But for one-time contribs? One-time contributions can be done entirely in the web UI, for

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 09:45 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera > wrote: > > If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2- > > only > > or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening > > the >

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik a écrit : > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me) > > Hi, > > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I > and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to > GPLv3+. > > The codebase

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:08 PM Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 15:55 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > No, as written in the wiki you write "Closes: $number" and it will > > > handle things automatically. > > > Of course some addition could be done to do the

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 08:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: >> > Original Message >> > Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org >> > Local Time: May 17, 2017 2:10 PM >> > UTC Time: May 17,

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening the can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions (such as

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:23:43PM +0200, Christoph Reiter wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Jehan Pagès > wrote: > > The only thing I am annoyed at is this forking workflow. Both as a > > contributor, and as a code committer/reviewer. Having to fetch a new >

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:20 PM Jehan Pagès wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > I don't like the fact that the bug report and the merge request are > > separate. > > I don't like this either. This just makes no

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:25:09PM +0200, Jehan Pagčs wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Carlos Soriano >> wrote: >> > Ah, I see what you mean now. But then

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 10:06 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote: > On 2017-05-16 07:10 PM, Mattias Bengtsson wrote: > > How did you install GitLab? We use the omnibus RPM package for > > CentOS > > and have had no dependency problems while upgrading from some 7.x > > release all the way to 9.1.x over the

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:25:09PM +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Carlos Soriano > wrote: > > Ah, I see what you mean now. But then you can rebase yourself in master > > right? And the build time would be exactly the same no? > >

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Ah, I see what you mean now. But then you can rebase yourself in master > right? And the build time would be exactly the same no? Not sure what you mean. You don't want to rebase master under any circumstances

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:49:21PM +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > By attaching a patch to a bugtracker ticket, we loose the information of > the parent commit: where the commit has been initially created in the > git history. If the patch is created by git format-patch, it contains the hash of

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 17:01 +0300, Ernestas Kulik wrote: > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me) > > Hi, > > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, > I > and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to > GPLv3+. > > The codebase has files under

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 15:55 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > If I'm a registered developer for the GNOME org, or that particular > module, I'd create my merge requests as wip branches in the main > repo?Or as branches in a separate repo that I have the control of? That would be up to you. Choose

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On 2017-05-16 07:10 PM, Mattias Bengtsson wrote: How did you install GitLab? We use the omnibus RPM package for CentOS and have had no dependency problems while upgrading from some 7.x release all the way to 9.1.x over the last few years. A lot come bundled in the omnibus package and the rest

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 15:55 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 08:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > > Original Message > > > Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org > > > Local Time: May 17, 2017 2:10 PM > > > UTC Time: May 17, 2017 12:10 PM > > >

Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

(Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me) Hi, As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to GPLv3+. The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the

Relicensing Nautilus as GPLv3+

Hi, Nautilus has been implicitly licensed under GPLv3 for the last couple of years, since some sources ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 08:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > Original Message > > Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org > > Local Time: May 17, 2017 2:10 PM > > UTC Time: May 17, 2017 12:10 PM > > From: had...@hadess.net > > To: Carlos Soriano

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Original Message Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org Local Time: May 17, 2017 2:10 PM UTC Time: May 17, 2017 12:10 PM From: had...@hadess.net To: Carlos Soriano desktop-devel-list@gnome.org On Wed,

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Ah, I see what you mean now. But then you can rebase yourself in master right? And the build time would be exactly the same no? Best regards, Carlos Soriano Original Message Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org Local Time: May 17, 2017 2:03 PM UTC Time: May 17,

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 06:36 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel- > list wrote: >> Do you mean you don't like the extra step that is clicking once per >> issue the "create merge request" button? > > I don't like

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 06:36 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel- list wrote: > Hey Bastien, > > Not sure if you read the wiki and the workflow we outlined in there, > since we mention how this works. You will realize that's not > necessary for you, neither a git-bz alternative since you will

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 13:54 +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Sébastien Wilmet >> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:45:26AM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:45:26AM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:33 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: >> > >> >> > Most developers are more familiar with the GitHub workflow, I think >> >

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi > On 17 May 2017, at 12:33, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:15:51PM +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: >> I don't share your optimism about gitlab bug tracking, nor do I share >> in the mentioned frustration with bugzilla. > > Me too, I like bugzilla

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

So the main problem is autotools rebuilds everything when switching branches, even if the files didn't change? That's sounds very strange, autotools builds based on mtime of the files, and I checked this personally. Are you sure of the reason of this situation? Could it be because the branch is

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Christoph Reiter wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Jehan Pagès > wrote: >> The only thing I am annoyed at is this forking workflow. Both as a >> contributor, and as a code committer/reviewer.

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:45:26AM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:33 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > > > > > Most developers are more familiar with the GitHub workflow, I think > > it's > > an easier workflow than attaching a patch to a bugtracker ticket. > > Once > >

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Hey Jehan, > > Knowing that core contributors like you and GIMP maintainers will have > access to the repo, are the sporadic contributions still many enough enough Yes we still have regular one-time

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Jehan Pagès wrote: > The only thing I am annoyed at is this forking workflow. Both as a > contributor, and as a code committer/reviewer. Having to fetch a new > remote for every single-commit contribution out there is terrible. In

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hey Jehan, Knowing that core contributors like you and GIMP maintainers will have access to the repo, are the sporadic contributions still many enough enough for fetching a remote being inconvenient? Is it because it takes considerably more time to fetch a repo than download and applying a

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:15:51PM +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: >> I don't share your optimism about gitlab bug tracking, nor do I share >> in the mentioned frustration with bugzilla. > > Me too, I like

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hey Bastien, Not sure if you read the wiki and the workflow we outlined in there, since we mention how this works. You will realize that's not necessary for you, neither a git-bz alternative since you will use just git: - git-bz apply equals to git checkout remoteBranch - git-bz attach equals

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:42:15AM +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: >> Github/gitlab wants to force you to fork the project into a public >> repository on your private account so that you can make a pull >> request. This

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:15:51PM +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > I don't share your optimism about gitlab bug tracking, nor do I share > in the mentioned frustration with bugzilla. Me too, I like bugzilla (but not for doing code reviews). What would be the pain points if GitLab is used

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On 17 May 2017 at 13:56, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Hey Arun, > > Glad to hear you are positive about the proposal! > > Let me answer your points: > > Original Message > Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org > Local Time: May 17, 2017 7:32 AM

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:33 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: >> > >> Most developers are more familiar with the GitHub workflow, I think >> it's >> an easier workflow than attaching a patch to a bugtracker ticket. >> Once

Paperwork / Gnome's dos and don'ts

Hello, As discussed in a previous thread, I am interested in hosting Paperwork ( https://github.com/openpaperwork/paperwork ) on gnome.org. I got no objection from the other contributors, so I assume they are all fine with that. However, before making the move, I would need some clarifications

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:33 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > > Most developers are more familiar with the GitHub workflow, I think > it's > an easier workflow than attaching a patch to a bugtracker ticket. > Once > the contributor has pushed a branch on the fork repo, all the rest > can > be

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:42:15AM +0200, Jehan Pagès wrote: > Github/gitlab wants to force you to fork the project into a public > repository on your private account so that you can make a pull > request. This is seriously stupid IMO and very poor workflow. That's > the reason why github/gitlab

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

Hey Arun, Glad to hear you are positive about the proposal! Let me answer your points: Original Message Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org Local Time: May 17, 2017 7:32 AM UTC Time: May 17, 2017 5:32 AM From: a...@accosted.net To: Carlos Soriano

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Mattias Bengtsson wrote: > At my work we keep a semi-linear git history: > - we only allow merges based on the tip of master > - we always merge with --no-ff (which is what GitLab's merge >button does) > > This gives us

Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org

From the migration plan in the wiki: "Our contention is that copying/moving every existing GNOME issue to a new issue tracker is impractical and, in many situations, undesirable." May you expand in which many situations is undesirable? I have tickets in Shotwell that have