subject:"Re\: \[systemd\-devel\] \[ANNOUNCE\] Git development moved to github"

On Wed, 10.06.15 06:44, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote:

 Filipe Brandenburger [2015-06-09 12:55 -0700]:
  I think a more productive advice would be for reviewers to avoid using
  line comments for anything that is wanted for posterity and instead
  only use them to say typo or comment here or to point out what
  exactly in the code the comment on the main thread is making reference
  to. Wouldn't you think that would be preferrable?
 
 FWIW, I don't like it that much either, but so far I still find this
 the best compromise. Creating and keeping track of multiple PRs and
 issues even for simple patches where there's a typo or a small style
 bugs is more unwieldy than losing the line comments IMHO.
 
 That said, I'll abide to Lennart's final decision to that of course.

I'd like to try it with new PRs for each review first. And we should
agressively lock old PRs to ensure people stop commenting on them as
soon as the new PR is around. There's a button on the lower right to
lock PRs...

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-10 Thread Martin Jansa

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:01:18AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
 On Tue, 09.06.15 14:54, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) wrote:
 
  On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Lennart Poettering
  lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
   On Tue, 09.06.15 13:04, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) 
   wrote:
   On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lennart Poettering 
   lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
[...] so we comment and ask for a new PR, and close the old one.
  
   See my previous comment, I think this cure is worse than the
   disease :-)
  
   Why would you say this? Why are multiple sequencial PR, where the old
   obsoleted ones are closed and locked that bad?
  
  - Too much administrivia
 
 Yes, I with this was easier to do. But I figure it's OK to do if you
 have the git shell helper stuff in place.
 
  - Threads get split up (did I comment on the origina PR or on this
one?)
 
 Yeah, it generally requires a regime for everybody to stick to code
 disccusions in the PR comments, and conceptional discussions in the
 issue comments. Also, when we obsolete a PR we should lock it to
 ensure people stop commenting there.
 
  - Hard to follow the references around
 
 Yupp.
 
  I actually think the fact that in GitHub you'll use a PR *or* and
  Issue is actually good, so you mainly have a single thread to discuss
  the same item...
 
 Well, but it's really weird... If you start out with a patch things
 are tracked as PR. If you start out without a patch things are tracked
 as an issue. And they have quite different workflows, as PRs cannot be
 reopened and issues can, for example.
 
 I am pretty sure issues should be at the core of things...
 
 WHat really surprises me about the whole discussion is that we cannot
 be the first ones running into this. Given the success of github this
 must be a common issue. And if it is, then either github is actually
 prety bad, or I am too stuck in my bugzilla mindset and haven't really
 grokked the github way of doing things yet.

If you want good review tool, why not use gerrit?

I know it was suggested before and that some people hate it for not
being as simple as any git server, but same people were already talking
about shell scripts or bots to open issue in bug tracker for each PR,
just to keep PR linked together.

I didn't like gerrit at first, but after using it for few years, I
really hate doing the review in Github, Stash or ReviewBoard. I don't
want to do side-by-side comparison between to PRs opened in separate
tabs, just because the tool doesn't know that it's actually the same
change and that comments on older PR should be resolved in newer one
and I want to see how - that's in my POV the whole point of review
process.

FWIW: biggest pains in gerrit UI were also fixed/improved in newer
versions, so if someone hated it in -2.4 version, please give 2.10+ a
try.

Regards,
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-10 Thread Andrei Borzenkov

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
 On Wed, 10.06.15 14:04, Martin Jansa (martin.ja...@gmail.com) wrote:

  WHat really surprises me about the whole discussion is that we cannot
  be the first ones running into this. Given the success of github this
  must be a common issue. And if it is, then either github is actually
  prety bad, or I am too stuck in my bugzilla mindset and haven't really
  grokked the github way of doing things yet.

 If you want good review tool, why not use gerrit?

 We do not have the resources to maintain our own infrastructure, and

There is http://gerrithub.io/ ; is own infrastructure really necessary?

 we need more than just a code review tool, we also need issue
 tracking, source hosting, build testing and so on. With github we get
 much of that even though their intended workflow appears to be quirky.

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Wed, 10.06.15 14:04, Martin Jansa (martin.ja...@gmail.com) wrote:

  WHat really surprises me about the whole discussion is that we cannot
  be the first ones running into this. Given the success of github this
  must be a common issue. And if it is, then either github is actually
  prety bad, or I am too stuck in my bugzilla mindset and haven't really
  grokked the github way of doing things yet.
 
 If you want good review tool, why not use gerrit?

We do not have the resources to maintain our own infrastructure, and
we need more than just a code review tool, we also need issue
tracking, source hosting, build testing and so on. With github we get
much of that even though their intended workflow appears to be quirky.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-10 Thread Alban Crequy

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
 On Tue, 09.06.15 13:04, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lennart Poettering
 lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
  [...] so we comment and ask for a new PR, and close the old one.

 See my previous comment, I think this cure is worse than the
 disease :-)

 Why would you say this? Why are multiple sequencial PR, where the old
 obsoleted ones are closed and locked that bad?

 Instead, just reuse the same PR and use `git push -f` to ship new
 versions of the commits to the same branch... Yes it's awful but
 unfortunately that's how GitHub works...

 Yeah, it is awful, and loses all the comments, as well is incompatible
 with having multiple people making patch suggestions for the same
 issue.

FWIW it only loses the comments if people comment on individual
commits instead of commenting on the Files changed tab of a PR. I
usually comment in this way on purpose instead of commenting on
commits, so that the history of comments are kept in the PR, even
after rebase (it might be folded if the chunk of the patch is not
there anymore, but the comment is still in the PR). If you really want
to comment on an individual commit (but I don't recommend it), you can
include the reference of the PR in your comment (#42), then github
will keep your comment attached to the PR.

I think it is fine as it is as long as people comment in the Files
changed tab.

 To work around the problem of line comments being lost, just ask
 *reviewers* to make most of the relevant comments in the PR thread and
 keep line comments to simple comments that are probably not going to
 be relevant when they're obliterated...

 Well, *the* major reason we switched to github is actually taking
 benefit of the much more powerful inline review tool that's a pleasure
 to work with. Reviews by mail are just awful, and reviews out-of-line
 are even worse.

 Lennart

 --
 Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
 ___
 systemd-devel mailing list
 systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
 http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github




On 06/10/2015 03:09 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

On Wed, 10.06.15 14:53, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:


WHat really surprises me about the whole discussion is that we cannot
be the first ones running into this. Given the success of github this
must be a common issue. And if it is, then either github is actually
prety bad, or I am too stuck in my bugzilla mindset and haven't really
grokked the github way of doing things yet.

If you want good review tool, why not use gerrit?

We do not have the resources to maintain our own infrastructure.

In term of manpower we have 452 code contributors and 1170 members
subscribed to this list.

Then there are several means to fund that infrastructure so could you please
clarify how you come to this conclusion that we are short on resources?

lurkers and admins who are committed to continously run services
for us for free over years are quite different things.

Also, systemd is not an organization, we are just some losely
affiliated hackers. We have no budget, we have no money, we cannot
employ anyone, and we have zero intention to change that and acquire
budget/money/administration.


o_O

Without proper infrastructure ( or at least the wills to acquire such )  
how can you ( or any of us for that matter ) with a straight face 
advocate for consolidation and call systemd the modern building block of 
an OS ( which arguably means this is second component to the Linux 
kernel ) and sell distribution and companies that it should be what they 
rely on?


All these years we have work hard on all distribution and embedded 
switch to us, rely on us and when push comes to shove we go meh we 
have no intention to go to the next level to properly support you?


Am I the only one here that feels any obligation and responsibility to 
our downstream consumers?


I need a drink...

JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Wed, 10.06.15 16:20, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:

 Without proper infrastructure ( or at least the wills to acquire such )  how
 can you ( or any of us for that matter ) with a straight face advocate for
 consolidation and call systemd the modern building block of an OS ( which
 arguably means this is second component to the Linux kernel ) and sell
 distribution and companies that it should be what they rely on?
 
 All these years we have work hard on all distribution and embedded switch to
 us, rely on us and when push comes to shove we go meh we have no intention
 to go to the next level to properly support you?

Yeah, we have no intention to turn systemd into a company or
foundation. Sorry.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-10 Thread Filipe Brandenburger

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Martin Jansa martin.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
 If you want good review tool, why not use gerrit?

+1 for Gerrit as a code review tool.

It's not perfect, but from all of them that I've used it seems to get
the most right:
- Review *commits* and not PRs (tends to drives up the quality of
individual commits and commit descriptions.)
- Linear history by default (though you can still configure it to
create the merges if you really care about preserving the original
commit ids.)
- Easy to compare two versions of the same commit, you can even do
side-by-side diff of version 3 with version 7 or whatever you like.
- You get to do line-by-line comments on the commit description, so
easy to nitpick there as well.
- You can take over commits from someone else and push a new version
*in the same review* so the comments are preserved and you can still
do side-by-side diffs.
- It does not tend to create spurious branches in the main project,
such as revert-*, etc. When doing `git fetch` we get a copy of those
which just serves to create noise.

Yes I noticed there's gerrithub.io, I haven't really looked at them
closely but looks like a good alternative...

They say they can convert PRs into Gerrits, I just don't know how easy
it is to update the commits with the comments, whether they can still
figure that out from the new push to the same branch of the PR or if
in that case you *need* to use Gerrit for it to figure out the
Commit-Id's, etc...

I'd be willing to do a more thorough evaluation of gerrithub.io, looks
like it can be used in parallel with GitHub anyways.

Cheers,
Filipe
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

B1;4002;0cOn Wed, 10.06.15 08:25, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) 
wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Alban Crequy al...@endocode.com wrote:
  Instead, just reuse the same PR and use `git push -f` to ship new
  versions of the commits to the same branch... Yes it's awful but
  unfortunately that's how GitHub works...
 
  Yeah, it is awful, and loses all the comments, as well is incompatible
  with having multiple people making patch suggestions for the same
  issue.
 
  FWIW it only loses the comments if people comment on individual
  commits instead of commenting on the Files changed tab of a PR. I
  usually comment in this way on purpose instead of commenting on
  commits, so that the history of comments are kept in the PR, even
  after rebase (it might be folded if the chunk of the patch is not
  there anymore, but the comment is still in the PR). If you really want
  to comment on an individual commit (but I don't recommend it), you can
  include the reference of the PR in your comment (#42), then github
  will keep your comment attached to the PR.
 
 Ah that makes sense!
 
 Indeed as I explained I like to look at the individual commits, so
 that would explain why my comments would get lost as a new version is
 pushed...
 
  I think it is fine as it is as long as people comment in the Files
  changed tab.
 
 Lennart, do you think setting that rule is better than the one PR per
 version of patchset?

No. We should review commits, not diffs. We also should review commit
msgs. (see other mail)

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-10 Thread Mihamina Rakotomandimby



On 06/10/2015 05:53 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:



On 06/10/2015 12:35 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

On Wed, 10.06.15 14:04, Martin Jansa (martin.ja...@gmail.com) wrote:


WHat really surprises me about the whole discussion is that we cannot
be the first ones running into this. Given the success of github this
must be a common issue. And if it is, then either github is actually
prety bad, or I am too stuck in my bugzilla mindset and haven't really
grokked the github way of doing things yet.

If you want good review tool, why not use gerrit?

We do not have the resources to maintain our own infrastructure.


In term of manpower we have 452 code contributors and 1170 members 
subscribed to this list.


Then there are several means to fund that infrastructure so could you 
please clarify how you come to this conclusion that we are short on 
resources?




It'a another thing to get an agreement for maintaining (responsible of 
funds, etc...) an infrastructure on long term.


___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:38:30PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
 
 
 On 06/10/2015 04:35 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
 On Wed, 10.06.15 16:20, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
 
 Without proper infrastructure ( or at least the wills to acquire such )  
 how
 can you ( or any of us for that matter ) with a straight face advocate for
 consolidation and call systemd the modern building block of an OS ( which
 arguably means this is second component to the Linux kernel ) and sell
 distribution and companies that it should be what they rely on?
 
 All these years we have work hard on all distribution and embedded switch 
 to
 us, rely on us and when push comes to shove we go meh we have no 
 intention
 to go to the next level to properly support you?
 Yeah, we have no intention to turn systemd into a company or
 foundation. Sorry.
 
 Is that a requirement?
 
 Can we not survive through funds and donation?
 
 As far as I know the linux kernel is neither an company nor a foundation and
 somehow they manage do they not?

http://www.linuxfoundation.org

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:04:17PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
 On 06/10/2015 05:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:
 There's also no real need for it, I don't understand why you keep
 insisting there is given how well things have been working so far.
 
 I do understand and am aware of the complication ( legal and otherwise
 social aspect of it etc ) involved with bringing funds to the project.
 
 Thou you might feel things have been working so far I do not.
 
 Has it worked? yes barely, Could we do better? very much so.
 
 I feel that the community has been showing growth pain for quite sometime.
 patches sent to the mailinglist have gone unnoticed, unreviewed. bugs filed
 in bz.fd.o being poorly handled etc.

Creating a foundation isn't going to change this :)

 That is why I started working ( a while back ) on finding suitable bug
 tracker, buying the systemd.community domain etc. with sole intent to
 offload work of developers ( and show up with proof of concept on one the
 hackfest to start this discussion for real )
 
 The reason I'm being so persistent is because I believe this is the right
 course forward at this point in time to offload work from developers and for
 the growth and improvement of the project hence I should give it my best to
 try to see that through.
 
 Also I'm afraid that the move to github will not yield the result that is
 being sought and arguably is necessary ( most certainly not alone)  on top
 of that people seem to have mixed feelings about it's process and workflows
 as well so deciding something like this behind closed door then simply
 announce it was not the right approach towards the community that is if the
 intend is truly to build,have and sustain a community but here we are.

How about we try the github stuff for a while now and see how well it
works, or does not work, and then iterate from there based on
experience?  Already it seems to me that the development traffic on
patches has gone up, but I have not really been tracking numbers at all,
neither does raw numbers accurately describe anything really.

So let's try this and see how it goes.

thanks,

greg k-h
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Wed, 10.06.15 17:38, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:

 Without proper infrastructure ( or at least the wills to acquire such )  
 how
 can you ( or any of us for that matter ) with a straight face advocate for
 consolidation and call systemd the modern building block of an OS ( which
 arguably means this is second component to the Linux kernel ) and sell
 distribution and companies that it should be what they rely on?
 
 All these years we have work hard on all distribution and embedded switch 
 to
 us, rely on us and when push comes to shove we go meh we have no 
 intention
 to go to the next level to properly support you?
 Yeah, we have no intention to turn systemd into a company or
 foundation. Sorry.
 
 Is that a requirement?
 
 Can we not survive through funds and donation?
 
 As far as I know the linux kernel is neither an company nor a foundation and
 somehow they manage do they not?

The kernel.org admin is paid by the Linux Foundation to my
knowledge. But, well, we are not the Linux kernel, and hence not the
posterchild of Open Source.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:38:30PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
 
 
 On 06/10/2015 04:35 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
 On Wed, 10.06.15 16:20, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
 
 Without proper infrastructure ( or at least the wills to acquire such )  
 how
 can you ( or any of us for that matter ) with a straight face advocate for
 consolidation and call systemd the modern building block of an OS ( which
 arguably means this is second component to the Linux kernel ) and sell
 distribution and companies that it should be what they rely on?
 
 All these years we have work hard on all distribution and embedded switch 
 to
 us, rely on us and when push comes to shove we go meh we have no 
 intention
 to go to the next level to properly support you?
 Yeah, we have no intention to turn systemd into a company or
 foundation. Sorry.
 
 Is that a requirement?
 
 Can we not survive through funds and donation?

To be more explicit, if you want to accept funds and a donations, you
need to be a legal organization.  The overhead involved in that is
non-trivial and the developers here do not want to deal with that, and I
don't blame them.

There's also no real need for it, I don't understand why you keep
insisting there is given how well things have been working so far.

greg k-h
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:38:30PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
 
 
 On 06/10/2015 04:35 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
 On Wed, 10.06.15 16:20, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
 
 Without proper infrastructure ( or at least the wills to acquire such )  
 how
 can you ( or any of us for that matter ) with a straight face advocate for
 consolidation and call systemd the modern building block of an OS ( which
 arguably means this is second component to the Linux kernel ) and sell
 distribution and companies that it should be what they rely on?
 
 All these years we have work hard on all distribution and embedded switch 
 to
 us, rely on us and when push comes to shove we go meh we have no 
 intention
 to go to the next level to properly support you?
 Yeah, we have no intention to turn systemd into a company or
 foundation. Sorry.
 
 Is that a requirement?
 
 Can we not survive through funds and donation?

To be more explicit, if you want to accept funds and a donations, you
need to be a legal organization.  The overhead involved in that is
non-trivial and the developers here do not want to deal with that, and I
don't blame them.

There's also no real need for it, I don't understand why you keep
insisting there is given how well things have been working so far.

greg k-h
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github


On 06/10/2015 05:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:

There's also no real need for it, I don't understand why you keep
insisting there is given how well things have been working so far.


I do understand and am aware of the complication ( legal and otherwise 
social aspect of it etc ) involved with bringing funds to the project.


Thou you might feel things have been working so far I do not.

Has it worked? yes barely, Could we do better? very much so.

I feel that the community has been showing growth pain for quite 
sometime. patches sent to the mailinglist have gone unnoticed, 
unreviewed. bugs filed in bz.fd.o being poorly handled etc.


That is why I started working ( a while back ) on finding suitable bug 
tracker, buying the systemd.community domain etc. with sole intent to 
offload work of developers ( and show up with proof of concept on one 
the hackfest to start this discussion for real )


The reason I'm being so persistent is because I believe this is the 
right course forward at this point in time to offload work from 
developers and for the growth and improvement of the project hence I 
should give it my best to try to see that through.


Also I'm afraid that the move to github will not yield the result that 
is being sought and arguably is necessary ( most certainly not alone)  
on top of that people seem to have mixed feelings about it's process and 
workflows as well so deciding something like this behind closed door 
then simply announce it was not the right approach towards the community 
that is if the intend is truly to build,have and sustain a community but 
here we are.


JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github




On 06/10/2015 04:35 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

On Wed, 10.06.15 16:20, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:


Without proper infrastructure ( or at least the wills to acquire such )  how
can you ( or any of us for that matter ) with a straight face advocate for
consolidation and call systemd the modern building block of an OS ( which
arguably means this is second component to the Linux kernel ) and sell
distribution and companies that it should be what they rely on?

All these years we have work hard on all distribution and embedded switch to
us, rely on us and when push comes to shove we go meh we have no intention
to go to the next level to properly support you?

Yeah, we have no intention to turn systemd into a company or
foundation. Sorry.


Is that a requirement?

Can we not survive through funds and donation?

As far as I know the linux kernel is neither an company nor a foundation 
and somehow they manage do they not?


JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github




On 06/10/2015 07:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:04:17PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:

On 06/10/2015 05:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:

There's also no real need for it, I don't understand why you keep
insisting there is given how well things have been working so far.

I do understand and am aware of the complication ( legal and otherwise
social aspect of it etc ) involved with bringing funds to the project.

Thou you might feel things have been working so far I do not.

Has it worked? yes barely, Could we do better? very much so.

I feel that the community has been showing growth pain for quite sometime.
patches sent to the mailinglist have gone unnoticed, unreviewed. bugs filed
in bz.fd.o being poorly handled etc.

Creating a foundation isn't going to change this :)


Arguably the foundation already exist but that foundation is not doing 
it's due dilligance so what alternative when dealing with the 
core/baseOS layer do we have?


Fragmentation is not the way, that has been historically proven so again 
what alternative have been discussed in this regard on plumbers?


After what 5 years is consolidation in sight or are people still 
thinking that layers is or should be about choice?






That is why I started working ( a while back ) on finding suitable bug
tracker, buying the systemd.community domain etc. with sole intent to
offload work of developers ( and show up with proof of concept on one the
hackfest to start this discussion for real )

The reason I'm being so persistent is because I believe this is the right
course forward at this point in time to offload work from developers and for
the growth and improvement of the project hence I should give it my best to
try to see that through.

Also I'm afraid that the move to github will not yield the result that is
being sought and arguably is necessary ( most certainly not alone)  on top
of that people seem to have mixed feelings about it's process and workflows
as well so deciding something like this behind closed door then simply
announce it was not the right approach towards the community that is if the
intend is truly to build,have and sustain a community but here we are.

How about we try the github stuff for a while now and see how well it
works, or does not work, and then iterate from there based on
experience?


We could implement this one the side and take from there ( evaluate ) 
since it's an -- addon -- to already chosen path not replacement but 
since you ( by you I mean the the cabal since afaik you did not have 
personal involvement in choosing this ) chose this route ( without input 
from the community and it's committers code or otherwise ).


I can wait patiently since it's curios for me to observe code walk into 
repository which is an addon rep of 4 millions and individuals expect 
that in a room full of 8 millions that they get heard and noticed and 
entering that venue willl solve all their problems ( if they manage to 
get noticed, it will answer quite old and by old I mean longer than the 
history of America and books will be written )


Yeah sure I can patiently accept that challenge to my intellect ( I 
waited what 2 years after me an Kay briefly touch this subject of 
community on one of the hackfest, arguably both of us slightly 
intoxicated and I dvelved and work on it ) and be amazed since last time 
I walked into a forest I could not see the lotus for the leaves but 
let's see if the Germans have answer to that, and joining a community of 
8 millions, with 4 millions of repositories will get heads to turn and 
people suddenly notice and contribute and or review code in relevance to 
our community.


I cant personally come to the conclusion that move to github will yield 
the increase that they expect but you seem too and the number is 452 
contributors to beat, so how long period do you choose to see if that 
number increase/decrease before you are willing to judge if that move 
was a success or a failure?


I'll put my money where my mouth is and put my community growth aside 
and say after this official move to a github, an community of 8 
millions, the contribution number will not have increased over thousand 
in this community after a year! heck I owe you a case of Icelandic beer 
of your choosing if that number has reach over 500 after that month.


If that number goes beyond 500 after three months, additional case plus 
a litre bottle of reykjavodka.


If that number has passed the 750 after half a year, your kayak trip 
around this miserable erupting rock.


If it passes the contribution mark of thousand after an year a dive in 
Silfra including gear!.


However if my prediction hold true you fly over here and teach me to 
build a kayak ( since I have never built a kayak but you have, an 
knowledge I gladly would possess ).


I have faith that I'm wright and you are wrong, do you have faith in you 
are wright and I'm wrong and willing to back that up?


JBG

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:01:06AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
 
 
 On 06/10/2015 07:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:04:17PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
 On 06/10/2015 05:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:
 There's also no real need for it, I don't understand why you keep
 insisting there is given how well things have been working so far.
 I do understand and am aware of the complication ( legal and otherwise
 social aspect of it etc ) involved with bringing funds to the project.
 
 Thou you might feel things have been working so far I do not.
 
 Has it worked? yes barely, Could we do better? very much so.
 
 I feel that the community has been showing growth pain for quite sometime.
 patches sent to the mailinglist have gone unnoticed, unreviewed. bugs filed
 in bz.fd.o being poorly handled etc.
 Creating a foundation isn't going to change this :)
 
 Arguably the foundation already exist but that foundation is not doing it's
 due dilligance so what alternative when dealing with the core/baseOS layer
 do we have?

I use foundation to mean, A non-profit organization created to
support a project/idea/group.  Not as in base on which to build on.

Perhaps that's why this thread makes no sense anymore, or at least to
me, sorry.

greg k-h
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Wed, 10.06.15 14:53, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:

 WHat really surprises me about the whole discussion is that we cannot
 be the first ones running into this. Given the success of github this
 must be a common issue. And if it is, then either github is actually
 prety bad, or I am too stuck in my bugzilla mindset and haven't really
 grokked the github way of doing things yet.
 If you want good review tool, why not use gerrit?
 We do not have the resources to maintain our own infrastructure.
 
 In term of manpower we have 452 code contributors and 1170 members
 subscribed to this list.
 
 Then there are several means to fund that infrastructure so could you please
 clarify how you come to this conclusion that we are short on resources?

lurkers and admins who are committed to continously run services
for us for free over years are quite different things.

Also, systemd is not an organization, we are just some losely
affiliated hackers. We have no budget, we have no money, we cannot
employ anyone, and we have zero intention to change that and acquire
budget/money/administration.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-10 Thread Filipe Brandenburger

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Alban Crequy al...@endocode.com wrote:
 Instead, just reuse the same PR and use `git push -f` to ship new
 versions of the commits to the same branch... Yes it's awful but
 unfortunately that's how GitHub works...

 Yeah, it is awful, and loses all the comments, as well is incompatible
 with having multiple people making patch suggestions for the same
 issue.

 FWIW it only loses the comments if people comment on individual
 commits instead of commenting on the Files changed tab of a PR. I
 usually comment in this way on purpose instead of commenting on
 commits, so that the history of comments are kept in the PR, even
 after rebase (it might be folded if the chunk of the patch is not
 there anymore, but the comment is still in the PR). If you really want
 to comment on an individual commit (but I don't recommend it), you can
 include the reference of the PR in your comment (#42), then github
 will keep your comment attached to the PR.

Ah that makes sense!

Indeed as I explained I like to look at the individual commits, so
that would explain why my comments would get lost as a new version is
pushed...

 I think it is fine as it is as long as people comment in the Files
 changed tab.

Lennart, do you think setting that rule is better than the one PR per
version of patchset?

Cheers,
Filipe
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github




On 06/09/2015 11:02 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

On Mon, 01.06.15 22:43, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote:


2015-06-01 20:12 GMT+02:00 David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com:

Hi

As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
git repository is now at github [1].

What about the bug tracker? Will it remain at fdo's bugzilla. I have
to admit I'm not a huge fan of github's bug tracker.

I am not a fan of bz either...

I think for now we prefer github, but will leave bz open, and we will
not migrate bugs.




I would like to see us move and migrated the bugs to jira ( which is 
without doubt the best and friendliest bug tracker I have found ) which 
integrates nicely with github as well as move the community wiki to 
confluence to strengthen collaboration in the community.


I had secured the systemd.community domain for just that work a while 
back and I have been working on it in my spare time to design and 
implement workflows for that in Jira.


I would be the one that would overseeing and handling the migration and 
I was hoping David Strauss might be willing to host that infrastructure 
for us and or some other place for that matter ( mini pc in systemd's HQ 
in German maybe ?)


I had plans on discussing all of this at one of the hackfest but due to 
lack of time and money I have been stuck on this rock here on top of the 
world.


JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-09 Thread Mihamina Rakotomandimby


On 06/09/2015 02:30 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:




As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
git repository is now at github [1].

What about the bug tracker? Will it remain at fdo's bugzilla. I have
to admit I'm not a huge fan of github's bug tracker.

I am not a fan of bz either...

I think for now we prefer github, but will leave bz open, and we will
not migrate bugs.



I would like to see us move and migrated the bugs to jira ( which is 
without doubt the best and friendliest bug tracker I have found ) 
which integrates nicely with github as well as move the community wiki 
to confluence to strengthen collaboration in the community.





I use Jira everyday but it will be overkill for our use.

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Mon, 01.06.15 22:43, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote:

 2015-06-01 20:12 GMT+02:00 David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com:
  Hi
 
  As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
  git repository is now at github [1].
 
 What about the bug tracker? Will it remain at fdo's bugzilla. I have
 to admit I'm not a huge fan of github's bug tracker.

I am not a fan of bz either...

I think for now we prefer github, but will leave bz open, and we will
not migrate bugs.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-09 Thread Camilo Aguilar

Oh please Jira no, it is too much and the user friendliness is highly
arguable.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:46 AM Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
wrote:



 On 06/09/2015 11:57 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
  On 06/09/2015 02:30 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
 
 
  As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
  git repository is now at github [1].
  What about the bug tracker? Will it remain at fdo's bugzilla. I have
  to admit I'm not a huge fan of github's bug tracker.
  I am not a fan of bz either...
 
  I think for now we prefer github, but will leave bz open, and we will
  not migrate bugs.
 
 
  I would like to see us move and migrated the bugs to jira ( which is
  without doubt the best and friendliest bug tracker I have found )
  which integrates nicely with github as well as move the community
  wiki to confluence to strengthen collaboration in the community.
 
 
 
  I use Jira everyday but it will be overkill for our use.

 As do I and am maintaining over 700 projects of different nature, with
 400.000 issue in such instance and it's not overkill, it is scalable
 which is precisely what we need and provides the necessary oversight
 that is required to health monitor the project(s) and the community as
 well as providing the modern collaboration infrastructure we need to, to
 sustain ourselves as a community on the 21 century.

 It is the perfect bug tracker, be it single project or more ( we require
 atleast three different project in that instance as in one for systemd
 itself and atleast two for the community, which be following completely
 different workflow than systemd project will ) for this and it is as
 very scalable ( and extendable via plugins ) for the future, for the
 direction the building block of modern OS ( systemd ) can take.

 I spent eight years working in mozilla bugzilla as well as various
 tracker instances and I can tell you here and now that they are
 insufficient for the task at hand since one of the goal here is to
 reduce time developers spend in bug trackers not increase it.

 On top of that the bugzilla mozilla and tracker UI is crap to use and
 lacks all mobile/tablet interface as far as I know.

 Which bug tracker would you propose?

 JBG
 ___
 systemd-devel mailing list
 systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
 http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github


On 06/09/2015 06:42 PM, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
Let's just try the GitHub tracker. I like how it associates issues 
with pull requests and supports auto-linking for commit IDs, user 
names, and other issue numbers. Is there any serious use case for 
systemd upstream it doesn't support?


What do you define as serious use case?

JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github




On 06/09/2015 06:53 PM, Camilo Aguilar wrote:
Oh please Jira no, it is too much and the user friendliness is highly 
arguable. 


Please do not top post and compared to bugzilla and the lack of proper 
oversight github and other issue tracker provide it's much better.


JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-09 Thread David Timothy Strauss

Let's just try the GitHub tracker. I like how it associates issues with
pull requests and supports auto-linking for commit IDs, user names, and
other issue numbers. Is there any serious use case for systemd upstream it
doesn't support?
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Tue, 09.06.15 11:30, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:

 I would like to see us move and migrated the bugs to jira ( which is without
 doubt the best and friendliest bug tracker I have found ) which integrates
 nicely with github as well as move the community wiki to confluence to
 strengthen collaboration in the community.

Well, I already feel uncomfortable with moving things to one closed
source platform in github, but given the advantages I accept
it. However, moving things to *two* closed source platforms sounds
even worse to me. If we bind our project to closed source companies I
much prefer sticking to one, instead of two.

Also, while I see quite a few shortcomings in github model, pure bug
tracking certainly isn't where the shortcomings are, it's more about
tracking patches where I am not convinced, but I doubt JIRA will fix
that part for us... or will it?

 I would be the one that would overseeing and handling the migration and I
 was hoping David Strauss might be willing to host that infrastructure for us
 and or some other place for that matter ( mini pc in systemd's HQ in German
 maybe ?)

I am very much of the opinion that we should be very careful when
commiting to maintain our own infrastructure. You know how
undermaintained fdo was, and if we do it on our own it's even
worse. Administrating our own servers is a huge amount of work
especially given you have to do this over a long long time
continously, and our workforce is already too limited for the amount
of work we have to do.

One of the major benefits of github I think is that it's their very
business to administer the site for us, and they'll do it as well as
they possibly can. That gets substantially more difficult if we roll
that all on our own, given that most of us have little desire to
become administrators oursevles and we have no budget for paying one
over years.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-09 Thread Filipe Brandenburger

Moving from #88 to this thread:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
 So I think updating the PR (by force-pushing) is really nasty, and we
 shouldn't do it. Instead, please push a new PR, mention that it
 obsoletes the old one. (of course, I wished that github would know a
 concept of PR obsoletion natively...)

 Also, I think in this case we really should require an issue being
 created for the entire thing that groups the various PRs together. (In
 fact, I am pretty sure we should *enforce* that all PRs have an issue
 attached to them. Maybe with a bot or so that creates issues for all
 PRs that reference no issue).

I don't think it's very practical to require opening multiple pull
requests for the several revisions and requiring that authors do not
use git push -f, particularly since most users of GitHub are already
used to that... Also, requiring an open issue to keep track of the
multiple PRs will probably quickly produce a sea of ids that will be
really hard to keep track of.

I think a more productive advice would be for reviewers to avoid using
line comments for anything that is wanted for posterity and instead
only use them to say typo or comment here or to point out what
exactly in the code the comment on the main thread is making reference
to. Wouldn't you think that would be preferrable?

Cheers,
Filipe
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Wed, 03.06.15 10:39, Krzesimir Nowak (krzesi...@endocode.com) wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I see that some patches from mailing list were imported as issues to
 github.com (like this one - https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/16).
 There's a problem with that - I can't update the PR anymore with followup
 fixes and whatnot. What's the workflow in this case? File a new PR and ask
 nicely for old one to be deleted?

So I think updating the PR (by force-pushing) is really nasty, and we
shouldn't do it. Instead, please push a new PR, mention that it
obsoletes the old one. (of course, I wished that github would know a
concept of PR obsoletion natively...)

Also, I think in this case we really should require an issue being
created for the entire thing that groups the various PRs together. (In
fact, I am pretty sure we should *enforce* that all PRs have an issue
attached to them. Maybe with a bot or so that creates issues for all
PRs that reference no issue).

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-09 Thread Camilo Aguilar

Usually, when a PR needs fixing, it is done in the same PR, and there may
be need to rebase so that commit history is not polluted, hence git push -f
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:59 PM Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
wrote:

 On Tue, 09.06.15 18:42, David Timothy Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net)
 wrote:

  Let's just try the GitHub tracker. I like how it associates issues with
  pull requests and supports auto-linking for commit IDs, user names, and
  other issue numbers. Is there any serious use case for systemd upstream
 it
  doesn't support?

 Here's one issue I have with the github bug tracker. Or maybe it's
 more an issue with the github PR tracker... Anyway, if somebody finds
 a bug in systemd two things might happen:

  a) if he's a user/admin without C skills, he'll just file an
 issue and that's it. that's great.

  b) if he's a hacker with C skills he'll likely send us a PR
 instead. But this is where the problems now start: Most likely
 the first patch iteration will not be right, so we comment and
 ask for a new PR, and close the old one. The two PRs will not
 be closely related to each other then. In the best case they
 will reference each other, but that's it. However what's
 worse is that the bug is not tracked at all in the the time
 between the old PR got closed and the new is opened. Now, we
 could require that in the meantime a new issue has to be
 created, but this is a manual process, and it will not inherit
 labels and stuff, unless the user does so manually. And that's
 nasty.

 And of course, the issue that in case of a) we only end up in an
 issue, and in case of b) when the first patch is actually good we only
 end up in a PR is a major issue too.

 I am not sure what to do about this yet. Maybe we can enforce that PRs
 have to have an issue, or so.

 Maybe anyone has an idea?

 Lennart

 --
 Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
 ___
 systemd-devel mailing list
 systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
 http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-09 Thread Filipe Brandenburger

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
 [...] so we comment and ask for a new PR, and close the old one.

See my previous comment, I think this cure is worse than the disease :-)

Instead, just reuse the same PR and use `git push -f` to ship new
versions of the commits to the same branch... Yes it's awful but
unfortunately that's how GitHub works...

To work around the problem of line comments being lost, just ask
*reviewers* to make most of the relevant comments in the PR thread and
keep line comments to simple comments that are probably not going to
be relevant when they're obliterated...

Cheers,
Filipe
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Tue, 09.06.15 18:42, David Timothy Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net) wrote:

 Let's just try the GitHub tracker. I like how it associates issues with
 pull requests and supports auto-linking for commit IDs, user names, and
 other issue numbers. Is there any serious use case for systemd upstream it
 doesn't support?

Here's one issue I have with the github bug tracker. Or maybe it's
more an issue with the github PR tracker... Anyway, if somebody finds
a bug in systemd two things might happen:

 a) if he's a user/admin without C skills, he'll just file an
issue and that's it. that's great.

 b) if he's a hacker with C skills he'll likely send us a PR
instead. But this is where the problems now start: Most likely
the first patch iteration will not be right, so we comment and
ask for a new PR, and close the old one. The two PRs will not
be closely related to each other then. In the best case they
will reference each other, but that's it. However what's
worse is that the bug is not tracked at all in the the time
between the old PR got closed and the new is opened. Now, we
could require that in the meantime a new issue has to be
created, but this is a manual process, and it will not inherit
labels and stuff, unless the user does so manually. And that's
nasty.

And of course, the issue that in case of a) we only end up in an
issue, and in case of b) when the first patch is actually good we only
end up in a PR is a major issue too.

I am not sure what to do about this yet. Maybe we can enforce that PRs
have to have an issue, or so. 

Maybe anyone has an idea?

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github




On 06/09/2015 07:50 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

On Tue, 09.06.15 11:30, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:


I would like to see us move and migrated the bugs to jira ( which is without
doubt the best and friendliest bug tracker I have found ) which integrates
nicely with github as well as move the community wiki to confluence to
strengthen collaboration in the community.

Well, I already feel uncomfortable with moving things to one closed
source platform in github, but given the advantages I accept
it. However, moving things to *two* closed source platforms sounds
even worse to me. If we bind our project to closed source companies I
much prefer sticking to one, instead of two.


There is no difference between one or many closed source since you 
decided to head down this road et all and I have yet to see the problem 
you sought out to alleviate will be solved with that change or that 
change alone for that matter.


Personally I'm not foreseeing us ever hacking on Atlassian source code 
directly but rather extend it via plugins ( locally written or otherwise 
) if the need arise ( which afaik would be only needed for QA related 
stuff ) so I dont see how you really can call this closed source 
however the source code for Atlassian products is available to license 
holders and they offer free licenses for official open source projects  
[¹] which covers all the plugins on the market place as well.





Also, while I see quite a few shortcomings in github model, pure bug
tracking certainly isn't where the shortcomings are, it's more about
tracking patches where I am not convinced, but I doubt JIRA will fix
that part for us... or will it?


I beg the differ for pure bug tracking it is quite limited.

The fact is we are long overdue building a proper infrastructure to 
sustain the building block of modern OS.


We need to do proper QA to properly support and backup our downstream 
consumers ( distributions, embedded and otherwise)  and that means 
tagging bugs by distributions, vendors, releases.
Once bug has been validated, write test cases to prevent them from 
happening again. provide them with prebuild packages to test ( and or 
only provide it as btrfs snapshots to avoid having to deal with plethora 
of packaging formats ) write proper release notes, provide proper 
documentation etc. means to correctly identify and allocate resources as 
needed.


The better work we do here is, the less is the work downstream consumers 
have do to downstream.



I would be the one that would overseeing and handling the migration and I
was hoping David Strauss might be willing to host that infrastructure for us
and or some other place for that matter ( mini pc in systemd's HQ in German
maybe ?)

I am very much of the opinion that we should be very careful when
commiting to maintain our own infrastructure. You know how
undermaintained fdo was, and if we do it on our own it's even
worse. Administrating our own servers is a huge amount of work
especially given you have to do this over a long long time
continously, and our workforce is already too limited for the amount
of work we have to do.


This is not as high maintenance as you let it out to be or resource 
intensive for that matter.  ( I design this with mini pc in mind, intel 
nuc and the like so this could be hosted here at home if necessary and 
or relocated to Germany if requested )


The infrastructure for this is well maintainable by a single individual 
in his spare time however four ( or more ) individuals providing their 
free time would be optimal.


Your workforce is limited to what you make it out to be and you seemed 
to be fixating on development resources alone which arguably is wrong on 
two accounts.


First development resource are small ( but important ) part of a 
successful project.


Secondly the success to systemd is thanks to collaborated effort between 
individuals residing in downstream consumer community's and this is 
where that collaboration effort would continue to grow since this is 
where the contributed time is best spent ( and least time I checked the 
community was far greater then what ca 20 committed developers  )


That said I was designing my work to reduce work on direct development 
resources not increase it ( which infrastructure resources are supposed 
to do ) so if you have to spent 10 minutes more once implemented than 
you did before this effort will have become a failure..




One of the major benefits of github I think is that it's their very
business to administer the site for us, and they'll do it as well as
they possibly can. That gets substantially more difficult if we roll
that all on our own, given that most of us have little desire to
become administrators oursevles and we have no budget for paying one
over years.


I had already taken money issue into account ( and even built a project 
within jira to handle that process ) since I did not expect nor want Red 
Hat to fund this effort.
( The

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github


On 06/09/2015 06:42 PM, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
Let's just try the GitHub tracker. I like how it associates issues 
with pull requests and supports auto-linking for commit IDs, user 
names, and other issue numbers. Is there any serious use case for 
systemd upstream it doesn't support?


I can setup an instance which hooks up to the github for people to tried 
it out and test + people that prefer reporting in github can just 
continue to do so, Jira imports those issues anyway..


We can also skip hosting it with you since you oppose this and having it 
there was just an idea anyway,


I'll just find another place to host the instance for jira and 
confluence, I'm paying for the domain as is anyway.


JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github




On 06/09/2015 09:34 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

On Tue, 09.06.15 19:19, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:


On 06/09/2015 06:42 PM, David Timothy Strauss wrote:

Let's just try the GitHub tracker. I like how it associates issues with
pull requests and supports auto-linking for commit IDs, user names, and
other issue numbers. Is there any serious use case for systemd upstream it
doesn't support?

I can setup an instance which hooks up to the github for people to tried it
out and test + people that prefer reporting in github can just continue to
do so, Jira imports those issues anyway..

I am pretty sure we should *at least* first get some experience with
github's own tools before we start jumping ship for some facets of
it. We need to understand where the shortcomings are before we look
for something else.


As I mentioned in my other reply Jira would be an addon to github not a 
replacement.


Atlassian has an product called stash [1] which is competing against 
github.


If people are looking into alternatives for an web-based git repository 
solutions to github some comparison can be found here [2]


I myself however is more invested in other aspects of the community than 
which web-based git repository solutions should be used
( what mattered only to me in that area was the move to pull requests 
since it was an key component for things to work in the long run and 
voila we have that with github ).


My area of interest is the infrastructure, qa documentation and such is 
where I see the necessity of laying the correct foundation so we have 
the room for growth, collaboration as well as it being the place which 
results in better utilization of individuals contributed time ( 
developers and others, for example we need to start offloading some work 
of developers at this point in time by my account ) .


1. https://www.atlassian.com/software/stash
2. 
http://www.slant.co/topics/1440/compare/~gitlab_vs_stash_vs_github-enterprise

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github




On 06/09/2015 09:44 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

On Tue, 09.06.15 21:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:


We need to do proper QA to properly support and backup our downstream
consumers ( distributions, embedded and otherwise)  and that means tagging
bugs by distributions, vendors, releases.

I'd be very careful with starting to track downstream issues
upstream. I explicitly want to avoid that. It's a good thing that the
bug kingdoms there are seperate, and that we aren't flooded with all
kinds of downstream bugs all the time upstream. The pre-filtering
done by downstream is absolutely important to keep things managable
for us upstream.

If anything I would be more strict here, and systematically refuse bug
reports upstream for any package version older than the newest two,
unless escalated by the downstream maintainers.


Agreed

In the long run I was thinking about a built in reporting tool that 
would report only the information we need, directly to our issue tracker 
( anonymously without the need for an login account, what I dubbed 
drive by reporting ) and label bugs based on information from 
os-release that would be sent with that report and minimize any 
communication from upstream to downstream bug trackers since it wastes 
time ( #1228909 on bz.rh.com is prime example of unwanted, unneeded 
distraction from downstream, what I call contributors time waster which 
is why I stepped in and try to close that report to no prevail. ).


I expected downstream package maintainers to have their own account and 
be part of this community and participating with us ( as is to be 
expected of downstream maintainers ) anyway first we need the 
infrastructure for that in place so I was keeping that information to 
myself ( as I'm doing with few other ideas ) until we have had sorted 
that out.


JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Tue, 09.06.15 12:55, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) wrote:

 Moving from #88 to this thread:
 
 On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Lennart Poettering
 lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
  So I think updating the PR (by force-pushing) is really nasty, and we
  shouldn't do it. Instead, please push a new PR, mention that it
  obsoletes the old one. (of course, I wished that github would know a
  concept of PR obsoletion natively...)
 
  Also, I think in this case we really should require an issue being
  created for the entire thing that groups the various PRs together. (In
  fact, I am pretty sure we should *enforce* that all PRs have an issue
  attached to them. Maybe with a bot or so that creates issues for all
  PRs that reference no issue).
 
 I don't think it's very practical to require opening multiple pull
 requests for the several revisions and requiring that authors do not
 use git push -f, particularly since most users of GitHub are already
 used to that... Also, requiring an open issue to keep track of the
 multiple PRs will probably quickly produce a sea of ids that will be
 really hard to keep track of.

Well, the idea would be to consider PRs little more than attachments
to the issues. And the issues would be only thing we'd really care
about and where coneptional discussions would held.

 I think a more productive advice would be for reviewers to avoid using
 line comments for anything that is wanted for posterity and instead
 only use them to say typo or comment here or to point out what
 exactly in the code the comment on the main thread is making reference
 to. Wouldn't you think that would be preferrable?

As mentioned in the other mail, nope, this is not preferrable: we
*really* want to take benefit of the better review tool set.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Tue, 09.06.15 21:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:

 We need to do proper QA to properly support and backup our downstream
 consumers ( distributions, embedded and otherwise)  and that means tagging
 bugs by distributions, vendors, releases.

I'd be very careful with starting to track downstream issues
upstream. I explicitly want to avoid that. It's a good thing that the
bug kingdoms there are seperate, and that we aren't flooded with all
kinds of downstream bugs all the time upstream. The pre-filtering
done by downstream is absolutely important to keep things managable
for us upstream.

If anything I would be more strict here, and systematically refuse bug
reports upstream for any package version older than the newest two,
unless escalated by the downstream maintainers.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-09 Thread Filipe Brandenburger

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
 On Tue, 09.06.15 13:04, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net 
 wrote:
  [...] so we comment and ask for a new PR, and close the old one.

 See my previous comment, I think this cure is worse than the
 disease :-)

 Why would you say this? Why are multiple sequencial PR, where the old
 obsoleted ones are closed and locked that bad?

- Too much administrivia
- Threads get split up (did I comment on the origina PR or on this one?)
- Hard to follow the references around
- E-mail notifications get split into separate threads (not that
GitHub does a stellar job of e-mail notifications anyways...)
- ...

I actually think the fact that in GitHub you'll use a PR *or* and
Issue is actually good, so you mainly have a single thread to discuss
the same item...

I just think that working around the GitHub bug of losing comments by
creating a convoluted workflow around it (which is hard to enforce, as
you can't really block PR authors from using `git push -f`) is the
wrong approach...

Maybe someone should complain to GitHub about this issue with losing
track of the comments on the previous versions of the code instead?

If that was fixed in GitHub, would you be happy not splitting multiple
PRs for multiple versions of the same feature/issue?

Cheers,
Filipe
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Tue, 09.06.15 14:54, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Lennart Poettering
 lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
  On Tue, 09.06.15 13:04, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) wrote:
  On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lennart Poettering 
  lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
   [...] so we comment and ask for a new PR, and close the old one.
 
  See my previous comment, I think this cure is worse than the
  disease :-)
 
  Why would you say this? Why are multiple sequencial PR, where the old
  obsoleted ones are closed and locked that bad?
 
 - Too much administrivia

Yes, I with this was easier to do. But I figure it's OK to do if you
have the git shell helper stuff in place.

 - Threads get split up (did I comment on the origina PR or on this
   one?)

Yeah, it generally requires a regime for everybody to stick to code
disccusions in the PR comments, and conceptional discussions in the
issue comments. Also, when we obsolete a PR we should lock it to
ensure people stop commenting there.

 - Hard to follow the references around

Yupp.

 I actually think the fact that in GitHub you'll use a PR *or* and
 Issue is actually good, so you mainly have a single thread to discuss
 the same item...

Well, but it's really weird... If you start out with a patch things
are tracked as PR. If you start out without a patch things are tracked
as an issue. And they have quite different workflows, as PRs cannot be
reopened and issues can, for example.

I am pretty sure issues should be at the core of things...

WHat really surprises me about the whole discussion is that we cannot
be the first ones running into this. Given the success of github this
must be a common issue. And if it is, then either github is actually
prety bad, or I am too stuck in my bugzilla mindset and haven't really
grokked the github way of doing things yet.

 I just think that working around the GitHub bug of losing comments by
 creating a convoluted workflow around it (which is hard to enforce, as
 you can't really block PR authors from using `git push -f`) is the
 wrong approach...

Well, I can actually enforce it by closing the PR and locking it. 

 Maybe someone should complain to GitHub about this issue with losing
 track of the comments on the previous versions of the code instead?

Well, that's not sufficient at all, see above.

 If that was fixed in GitHub, would you be happy not splitting multiple
 PRs for multiple versions of the same feature/issue?

I would prefer if we'd have immutable history. i.e. each issue that is
raised should keep its comments, its patches, its reviews forever, but
just get them marked obsolete but not vanished.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Tue, 09.06.15 19:19, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:

 On 06/09/2015 06:42 PM, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
 Let's just try the GitHub tracker. I like how it associates issues with
 pull requests and supports auto-linking for commit IDs, user names, and
 other issue numbers. Is there any serious use case for systemd upstream it
 doesn't support?
 
 I can setup an instance which hooks up to the github for people to tried it
 out and test + people that prefer reporting in github can just continue to
 do so, Jira imports those issues anyway..

I am pretty sure we should *at least* first get some experience with
github's own tools before we start jumping ship for some facets of
it. We need to understand where the shortcomings are before we look
for something else.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On Tue, 09.06.15 13:04, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lennart Poettering
 lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
  [...] so we comment and ask for a new PR, and close the old one.
 
 See my previous comment, I think this cure is worse than the
 disease :-)

Why would you say this? Why are multiple sequencial PR, where the old
obsoleted ones are closed and locked that bad?

 Instead, just reuse the same PR and use `git push -f` to ship new
 versions of the commits to the same branch... Yes it's awful but
 unfortunately that's how GitHub works...

Yeah, it is awful, and loses all the comments, as well is incompatible
with having multiple people making patch suggestions for the same
issue.

 To work around the problem of line comments being lost, just ask
 *reviewers* to make most of the relevant comments in the PR thread and
 keep line comments to simple comments that are probably not going to
 be relevant when they're obliterated...

Well, *the* major reason we switched to github is actually taking
benefit of the much more powerful inline review tool that's a pleasure
to work with. Reviews by mail are just awful, and reviews out-of-line
are even worse.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github




On 06/09/2015 11:57 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:

On 06/09/2015 02:30 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:




As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
git repository is now at github [1].

What about the bug tracker? Will it remain at fdo's bugzilla. I have
to admit I'm not a huge fan of github's bug tracker.

I am not a fan of bz either...

I think for now we prefer github, but will leave bz open, and we will
not migrate bugs.



I would like to see us move and migrated the bugs to jira ( which is 
without doubt the best and friendliest bug tracker I have found ) 
which integrates nicely with github as well as move the community 
wiki to confluence to strengthen collaboration in the community.





I use Jira everyday but it will be overkill for our use.


As do I and am maintaining over 700 projects of different nature, with 
400.000 issue in such instance and it's not overkill, it is scalable 
which is precisely what we need and provides the necessary oversight 
that is required to health monitor the project(s) and the community as 
well as providing the modern collaboration infrastructure we need to, to 
sustain ourselves as a community on the 21 century.


It is the perfect bug tracker, be it single project or more ( we require 
atleast three different project in that instance as in one for systemd 
itself and atleast two for the community, which be following completely 
different workflow than systemd project will ) for this and it is as 
very scalable ( and extendable via plugins ) for the future, for the 
direction the building block of modern OS ( systemd ) can take.


I spent eight years working in mozilla bugzilla as well as various 
tracker instances and I can tell you here and now that they are 
insufficient for the task at hand since one of the goal here is to 
reduce time developers spend in bug trackers not increase it.


On top of that the bugzilla mozilla and tracker UI is crap to use and 
lacks all mobile/tablet interface as far as I know.


Which bug tracker would you propose?

JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-09 Thread Mihamina Rakotomandimby


On 06/09/2015 10:50 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

I would like to see us move and migrated the bugs to jira ( which is without
doubt the best and friendliest bug tracker I have found ) which integrates
nicely with github as well as move the community wiki to confluence to
strengthen collaboration in the community.

Well, I already feel uncomfortable with moving things to one closed
source platform in github, but given the advantages I accept
it. However, moving things to*two*  closed source platforms sounds
even worse to me. If we bind our project to closed source companies I
much prefer sticking to one, instead of two.


We should have switched to Gitlab then:
https://about.gitlab.com/2015/03/03/gitlab-acquires-gitorious/
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-09 Thread Martin Pitt

Filipe Brandenburger [2015-06-09 12:55 -0700]:
 I think a more productive advice would be for reviewers to avoid using
 line comments for anything that is wanted for posterity and instead
 only use them to say typo or comment here or to point out what
 exactly in the code the comment on the main thread is making reference
 to. Wouldn't you think that would be preferrable?

FWIW, I don't like it that much either, but so far I still find this
the best compromise. Creating and keeping track of multiple PRs and
issues even for simple patches where there's a typo or a small style
bugs is more unwieldy than losing the line comments IMHO.

That said, I'll abide to Lennart's final decision to that of course.

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-05 Thread David Herrmann

Hi

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Lucas De Marchi
lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
 Of course this is a non-issue for several projects in github which
 don't have proper commit
 review. It's not the case of systemd and it seems it's even the reason
 why you are moving
 to github.  So I'm just curious if anything changed in this regard or
 you solved it in another
 way.

github attaches code-reviews to the actual git commits. The PR
displays all comments on the commits in the given branch. As long as
those commits stay part of the PR, the comments will remain. However,
if people force-push corrected commits, the old commits are no longer
linked in any way to the PR and thus will not be shown. You can still
access them by directly looking at the old commit, though.

With their model, I understand why old reviews are lost on force-push.
You can work around this, by including the sha256 in your PR comments
after a review. Those comments remain and you can look at the old
reviews this way. They'll not be linked in a shiny way (but that's the
same if you resend your mails on an ML..).

Thanks
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-05 Thread Lucas De Marchi

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:02 AM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi

 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Lucas De Marchi
 lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
 Of course this is a non-issue for several projects in github which
 don't have proper commit
 review. It's not the case of systemd and it seems it's even the reason
 why you are moving
 to github.  So I'm just curious if anything changed in this regard or
 you solved it in another
 way.

 github attaches code-reviews to the actual git commits. The PR
 displays all comments on the commits in the given branch. As long as
 those commits stay part of the PR, the comments will remain. However,
 if people force-push corrected commits, the old commits are no longer
 linked in any way to the PR and thus will not be shown. You can still
 access them by directly looking at the old commit, though.

 With their model, I understand why old reviews are lost on force-push.
 You can work around this, by including the sha256 in your PR comments
 after a review. Those comments remain and you can look at the old
 reviews this way. They'll not be linked in a shiny way (but that's the
 same if you resend your mails on an ML..).

I can be proven wrong, but I don't think you can actually do what you're saying.
If you force push a branch you actually lose the comments on the previous set.
Being able to access the old commit is pure luck while there isn't a gc on
the remote repository.

Also, comments on a commit of a pull request are attached to the
*forked repository*,
not the repository in which the pull request was made. So if the
remote is deleted,
upstream can't see them anymore.  Upstream still have the commits under
refs/pull/pull-req-number/head (the last iteration of the patch
set), but comments
are gone.

-- 
Lucas De Marchi
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-03 Thread Martin Pitt

Hello Krzesimir,

Krzesimir Nowak [2015-06-03 10:39 +0200]:
 I see that some patches from mailing list were imported as issues to
 github.com (like this one - https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/16).
 There's a problem with that - I can't update the PR anymore with followup
 fixes and whatnot. What's the workflow in this case? File a new PR and ask
 nicely for old one to be deleted?

That will do indeed; we already cleaned up some duplicates, it's not a
big deal. This is just a transitional issue to mop up the pending
patches on the ML, so nothing that will cause this kind of paperwork
for a long time.

Thanks,

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-03 Thread Krzesimir Nowak

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:12 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hi

 As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
 git repository is now at github [1]. The old repository will still be
 back-synced, but we had to disable push-access to avoid getting
 out-of-sync with github.

 In recent months, keeping up with the mailing-list has become more and
 more cumbersome, with many of us missing mails or unable to keep up
 with the traffic. To make sure all community requests and patches will
 get handled in time, we're now trying out the github infrastructure.
 We encourage everyone in the development community to switch over now,
 even though the old fd.o infrastructure will still be maintained.
 Distributions are free to wait until the next release announcement
 before updating anything.

 If github does not work out, we will see what else we can try out. But
 lets give it at least a try.

 Thanks
 David


Hi,

I see that some patches from mailing list were imported as issues to
github.com (like this one - https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/16).
There's a problem with that - I can't update the PR anymore with followup
fixes and whatnot. What's the workflow in this case? File a new PR and ask
nicely for old one to be deleted?

Thanks,
Krzesimir


 [1] https://github.com/systemd-devs/systemd
 ___
 systemd-devel mailing list
 systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
 http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-03 Thread Filipe Brandenburger

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov
dimitri.j.led...@intel.com wrote:
 And I think this is _good_, because the submitter's commit ids will be
 preserved (together with the signed gpg commits) [...]

This, signed gpg commits, is actually the first reasonable argument I
see for merging and not rebasing commits.

TL;DR: GitHub model sucks, but I think we can live with it.

I think, though, in general, the GitHub way of focusing on PRs and
not commits tends to generate poorer git commits and git histories in
general. I too often see broken PRs being ammended with second or
third commits to fix the bugs, which makes git bisect hit and miss in
lots of projects. And many projects have commit descriptions that are
totally meaningless (that's not just a GitHub thing, but I think
GitHub makes it a lot easier to get sloppy on those.)

I actually think who gets it right is Gerrit which is focused on
individual commits and not in PRs with sets of commits. Even if you
upload 3 or 4 commits in a row, they'll be reviewed one by one and
submitted as they're approved. It's easy to merge the first two but
send the last two back for rework. With GitHub, you'd have to do that
manually. I'm not saying Gerrit is perfect, far from it, but I think
at least they got it right in being commit-centric rather than
PR-centric.

GitHub also makes it hard to look at the individual commits and commit
messages. By default, they just give you the blurb the author typed on
the PR description (which ends up nowhere in git) and show you a
consolidated diff for the whole PR, so it's quite possible that the
first commit in the series doesn't even compile and you won't really
get to know about that as you merge it. I always make a point to first
thing reviewing a PR go to the commits tab and look at each commit
on its own, most of the time I don't even look at the consolidated
diff since I think it's mostly meaningless.

I'm of course counting on our maintainers here to make a good job of
weeding out bad commits.

I think one model that helps is that of the Commit Queue, in which
whenever a commit (or PR) is ready to be merged, it still goes through
a queue that tries to build it and possibly run some smoke tests to
ensure nothing is badly broken before actually merging it to git. Such
a system would most likely rebase, producing a linear history.

Oh, and I'm all for merges of feature branches, for an actual
*feature* as in something that takes 15 commits to implement and
needs to be developed in a separate branch. But those will most likely
be merged manually since I don't expect they won't have conflicts
anyways, so the PR merge feature of GitHub will be mostly useless
then...

Anyways, excuse the rant... I think we can live with GitHub and in the
end, everything will be alright :-)

Cheers,
Filipe
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-03 Thread Colin Guthrie

Abdó Roig-Maranges wrote on 02/06/15 17:03:
 
 Daniel Mack writes:
 
 On 06/02/2015 04:34 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
 Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
 remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
 cleaner git log history.

 Btw, Harald pointed me to this simple alias that makes checking out a
 pending pull request a one-liner:

   https://gist.github.com/gnarf/5406589
 
 
 Hi,
 
 I saw this thread and I can't stop from advertising a tool I recently 
 discovered
 for dealings with github.
 
 https://github.com/sociomantic/git-hub
 
 You can do things like:
 
 $ git hub clone -t systemd/systemd
 
 To clone and fork into my account in one go
 
 $ git hub pull list
 
 [33] cgtop: add options to format memory, IO usage in raw bytes (haraldh)
  https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/33
 [32] Ensure that /run/systemd/network exists (haraldh)
  https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/32
 [31] cgtop: raw output option (disable conversion to human-readable units) 
 (haraldh)
  https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/31
 [30] More cgtop enhancements (haraldh)
  https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/30
 
 [...]
 
 $ git hub pull checkout 33
 
 To checkout a pull request, in detached HEAD (no new remote, nor branch...)
 
 $ git hub pull rebase 33
 
 To rebase a pull request, update it on github and close it.
 
 It is also very easy to create new issues / pull requests, or add comments 
 directly from
 the command line.

This looks very useful indeed. Mostly replying so hopefully more people
will see it :)

Col

-- 

Colin Guthrie
colin(at)mageia.org
http://colin.guthr.ie/

Day Job:
  Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open Source:
  Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
  PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
  Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-03 Thread Suckow, Thomas J



On 6/3/15, 7:14 AM, Filipe Brandenburger filbran...@google.com wrote:


I think, though, in general, the GitHub way of focusing on PRs and
not commits tends to generate poorer git commits and git histories in
general. I too often see broken PRs being ammended with second or
third commits to fix the bugs, which makes git bisect hit and miss in
lots of projects.

It is what the project makes it. If the project demands people to rewrite
the PR history instead of tacking on fix commits, then this problem is
avoided.


And many projects have commit descriptions that are
totally meaningless (that's not just a GitHub thing, but I think
GitHub makes it a lot easier to get sloppy on those.)

The project is responsible for enforcing quality. If a project has a lazy
maintainer, the project will reflect it.

I actually think who gets it right is Gerrit which is focused on
individual commits and not in PRs with sets of commits. Even if you
upload 3 or 4 commits in a row, they'll be reviewed one by one and
submitted as they're approved. It's easy to merge the first two but
send the last two back for rework. With GitHub, you'd have to do that
manually. I'm not saying Gerrit is perfect, far from it, but I think
at least they got it right in being commit-centric rather than
PR-centric.

I use Gerrit at work and Github at home. You can be hard nosed about it
either way. I actually find Gerrit more trouble in the sense that people
who are not comfortable with Git can really screw up Gerrit and make it
tedious to abandon a bunch of commits. On github a force push usually
makes all badness a figment of your imagination. Maybe it is just work
though, it is much easier to be hard nosed to strangers.


GitHub also makes it hard to look at the individual commits and commit
messages. By default, they just give you the blurb the author typed on
the PR description (which ends up nowhere in git) and show you a
consolidated diff for the whole PR, so it's quite possible that the
first commit in the series doesn't even compile and you won't really
get to know about that as you merge it. I always make a point to first
thing reviewing a PR go to the commits tab and look at each commit
on its own, most of the time I don't even look at the consolidated
diff since I think it's mostly meaningless.

As you should IMO.

I'm of course counting on our maintainers here to make a good job of
weeding out bad commits.

A good project starts with good maintainers. Long live good maintainers.

-
Thomas

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-03 Thread David Timothy Strauss

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:

 Could you please check your old repos at:
   https://github.com/systemd
 and move or delete them if they are no longer needed. One of them at
 least has a comment like This is old. Actual repo is on my
 davidstrauss account. Will clean up soon. (2012)

 We should only keep repos here for code that we actually host. Cloned
 repos should only be there if they are supposed to be shared by
 multiple people to work on them at the same time, everything else
 should be done in a user repo.


This is now done. The only remaining forked repository is the Linux kernel,
which appears to be for kdbus work.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-03 Thread Kay Sievers

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:06 PM, David Timothy Strauss
da...@davidstrauss.net wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:

 Could you please check your old repos at:
   https://github.com/systemd
 and move or delete them if they are no longer needed. One of them at
 least has a comment like This is old. Actual repo is on my
 davidstrauss account. Will clean up soon. (2012)

 We should only keep repos here for code that we actually host. Cloned
 repos should only be there if they are supposed to be shared by
 multiple people to work on them at the same time, everything else
 should be done in a user repo.

 This is now done.

Great.

 The only remaining forked repository is the Linux kernel,
 which appears to be for kdbus work.

Yeah, for now we use that as the public interface for the kdbus work,
for people to pull our changes from.

Kay
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-03 Thread Lucas De Marchi

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote:
 David Herrmann [2015-06-02 13:06 +0200]:
 Our preferred way to send future patches is the github way. This
 means sending pull-requests to the github repo. Furthermore, all
 feature patches should go through pull-requests and should get
 reviewed pre-commit. This applies to everyone. Exceptions are
 non-controversial patches like typos and obvious bug-fixes.

 Makes sense. On the operational level, should we use the
 automatically merge feature of git hub once approving? On the plus
 side it's very convenient, but you'll get one Merge commit for every
 PR (which is often just one commit), so we'd almost double the entries
 in git log. Or can github be told to not do that?

 Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
 remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
 cleaner git log history.

 Use github.

 With the decision to move to github, we need to accept the github
 model and with that accept possible cosmetic issues.

Have you guys found a way to preserve the comments on pull requests?
I don't see
it as a cosmetic issue but this was rather the reason I moved projects
away from github
in the past.

As a maintainer of other projects I need to point to a discussion on a
single patch
and be able to see the previous iterations of a patch.  And also check what was
the conclusion on a patch set that was accepted in the repository.
It's also nice
for developers to check if there was any attempt already in
implementing some feature
and it was denied by any reason.

Last time I checked this is impossible with github because you lose
the comments on
each patch when a second version arrives.

Of course this is a non-issue for several projects in github which
don't have proper commit
review. It's not the case of systemd and it seems it's even the reason
why you are moving
to github.  So I'm just curious if anything changed in this regard or
you solved it in another
way.

thanks

-- 
Lucas De Marchi
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Umut Tezduyar Lindskog

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:12 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi

 As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
 git repository is now at github [1]. The old repository will still be
 back-synced, but we had to disable push-access to avoid getting
 out-of-sync with github.

 In recent months, keeping up with the mailing-list has become more and
 more cumbersome, with many of us missing mails or unable to keep up
 with the traffic. To make sure all community requests and patches will
 get handled in time, we're now trying out the github infrastructure.
 We encourage everyone in the development community to switch over now,
 even though the old fd.o infrastructure will still be maintained.
 Distributions are free to wait until the next release announcement
 before updating anything.

Does it mean that we should stop sending patches to the ML, instead we
should do it through the git? Also, there are some patches in the ML
that haven't been merged. Will you guys take care of it or should we
send them over github?

Umut


 If github does not work out, we will see what else we can try out. But
 lets give it at least a try.

 Thanks
 David

 [1] https://github.com/systemd-devs/systemd
 ___
 systemd-devel mailing list
 systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
 http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Michael Marineau

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Daniel Mack dan...@zonque.org wrote:
 On 06/02/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Regarding the final github address: David Strauss kindly offered the
 'systemd' user to us. Hence, we hope to move the repository to
 github.com/systemd/systemd this week. Sorry for the confusion, I hope
 we can settle all this this week.

 I recommend you get this sorted out as soon as possible and not wait
 another moment. People have already submitted pull requests to both
 repos, and things are going to get quite confusing if you don't move
 fast on this.

 It's sorted out now. https://github.com/systemd/systemd is now the
 official upstream. The old repo from systemd-devs was transferred
 withing GitHub, which means that the old web and ssh URLs are currently
 redirected automatically. However, we will remove the systemd-devs
 organization any time soon to avoid further confusion.

As an FYI for everyone who previously forked the mirror repo that
previously lived at https://github.com/systemd/systemd, since that
repo was deleted and replaced the github fork network of repos that
descended from it is now on its own and random other repos are now
listed as the forked from repo, in my case my parent repo is listed
as https://github.com/terencehonles/systemd now. Since it is not
possible to make pull requests between fork networks in order to
submit PRs to the new systemd repo old repos have to be deleted and
re-forked. As far as I know there isn't a nicer way to fix it. :(
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Ronny Chevalier

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi

 On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:12 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi

 As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
 git repository is now at github [1]. The old repository will still be
 back-synced, but we had to disable push-access to avoid getting
 out-of-sync with github.

 In recent months, keeping up with the mailing-list has become more and
 more cumbersome, with many of us missing mails or unable to keep up
 with the traffic. To make sure all community requests and patches will
 get handled in time, we're now trying out the github infrastructure.
 We encourage everyone in the development community to switch over now,
 even though the old fd.o infrastructure will still be maintained.
 Distributions are free to wait until the next release announcement
 before updating anything.

 If github does not work out, we will see what else we can try out. But
 lets give it at least a try.

 Short update trying to answer all the questions:

 Our preferred way to send future patches is the github way. This
 means sending pull-requests to the github repo. Furthermore, all
 feature patches should go through pull-requests and should get
 reviewed pre-commit. This applies to everyone. Exceptions are
 non-controversial patches like typos and obvious bug-fixes.
 The exact 'rules' on when to merge a pull-request need to be figured
 out once we get going. Ideas welcome! Until then, just apply common
 sense. Push-access can be granted to contributors like before.
 However, given that we want a pre-commit review model, it will not
 make much of a difference which person eventually merges the patches.
 We still highly appreciate the effort spent by many commiters to
 review and apply trivial changes up to critical bugfixes. This worked
 well and we want to keep this model, but avoid it for any feature
 development.

 The mailing-list will still be used for non-code related discussions,
 and I think (?) patches from new contributors on the ML might still be
 handled as before. But I guess this is mostly limited to trivial
 patches. Bigger patchsets should really go through github to avoid
 them getting lost on mailing-lists.
 Regarding the bug-tracker, I honestly don't know what the plan is. I
 think the plan is to stick to everything github provides us, to make
 sure we don't spread our tools across multiple hosts. However, I
 personally would prefer to discuss this in the community and see what
 issues come up. Anyone?

 The reason behind this move is that our current post-commit model
 places a high burden on anyone doing a release. It really does not
 scale and requires often more than a month to review everything. It is
 hard to distribute the workload as the infrastructure doesn't provide
 any help here. The result could be seen with the several hiccups
 during the 220 release.
 Furthermore, we want to avoid miscommunications on bigger feature
 patches that might not make it into upstream. With a pre-commit
 review, we hope to settle discussions before any code makes it into
 git, and save everyone the hassle of reverting patches which maybe
 other projects already relied on.

 Regarding the final github address: David Strauss kindly offered the
 'systemd' user to us. Hence, we hope to move the repository to
 github.com/systemd/systemd this week. Sorry for the confusion, I hope
 we can settle all this this week.

 Finally, please speak up if there are any issues. I will do my best to
 address them. We want to tryout github to reduce the burden on the
 maintainers, but to also improve the interactions with outside
 contributions. Feedback is welcome! And to everyone not happy with
 that move, we'd appreciate if you could still give it a try. Lets see
 how it works out!

Will the systemd-commits ML still receive mails when commits are pushed?

It was easy to do post-review of the commits pushed on the repo with
this ML (or maybe there is a github feature that sends mail
notifications when there is commits pushed that I missed).


 Thanks
 David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Suckow, Thomas J


On 6/2/15, 2:05 PM, Stefan Tatschner rumpels...@sevenbyte.org wrote:
On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 14:49 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
  Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
  remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
  cleaner git log history.
 I'd very much prefer to keep current look of the git tree, without
 gratuitous merge commits. For bigger changes, which are composed of
 a larger number of commits, merges are fine. But most patchsets to
 systmed
 are either a single commit or two or three.

You could append .patch to any github commit [1] or pull request [2]
url and pipe them into git am with curl or something. Maybe that
would be a workaround for pull request consisting of only one or two
patches.


You can also fetch pull requests from the origin on github:
https://help.github.com/articles/checking-out-pull-requests-locally/


git fetch origin pull/ID/head:BRANCHNAME

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread David Timothy Strauss

Looks like everything's in place now at the new github.com/systemd/systemd
home.

I've halted the Jenkins CI from pushing to that repository (which was
formerly the mirror updated whenever CI passed). I'll probably update CI to
merely push a branch like master-passing so there's still a way to get
the latest passing commit, but it's just disabled for now.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Kay Sievers

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:51 AM, David Timothy Strauss
da...@davidstrauss.net wrote:
 Looks like everything's in place now at the new github.com/systemd/systemd
 home.

 I've halted the Jenkins CI from pushing to that repository (which was
 formerly the mirror updated whenever CI passed). I'll probably update CI to
 merely push a branch like master-passing so there's still a way to get the
 latest passing commit, but it's just disabled for now.

Great. Thanks.

Could you please check your old repos at:
  https://github.com/systemd
and move or delete them if they are no longer needed. One of them at
least has a comment like This is old. Actual repo is on my
davidstrauss account. Will clean up soon. (2012)

We should only keep repos here for code that we actually host. Cloned
repos should only be there if they are supposed to be shared by
multiple people to work on them at the same time, everything else
should be done in a user repo.

Thanks,
Kay
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Stefan Tatschner

On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 14:49 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
  Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
  remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
  cleaner git log history.
 I'd very much prefer to keep current look of the git tree, without
 gratuitous merge commits. For bigger changes, which are composed of
 a larger number of commits, merges are fine. But most patchsets to 
 systmed
 are either a single commit or two or three.

You could append .patch to any github commit [1] or pull request [2]
url and pipe them into git am with curl or something. Maybe that
would be a workaround for pull request consisting of only one or two
patches.

Stefan

[1]: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/2fd51106ee0d685ca1512a01
e6680142382586a7.patch
[2]: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/41.patch
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On 1 June 2015 at 19:12, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi

 As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
 git repository is now at github [1]. The old repository will still be
 back-synced, but we had to disable push-access to avoid getting
 out-of-sync with github.

 [1] https://github.com/systemd-devs/systemd

And where will be the stable repository / branches?

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.
Pura Vida!

https://clearlinux.org
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread David Herrmann

Hi

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:12 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi

 As of today we've disabled git-push to fd.o. The official development
 git repository is now at github [1]. The old repository will still be
 back-synced, but we had to disable push-access to avoid getting
 out-of-sync with github.

 In recent months, keeping up with the mailing-list has become more and
 more cumbersome, with many of us missing mails or unable to keep up
 with the traffic. To make sure all community requests and patches will
 get handled in time, we're now trying out the github infrastructure.
 We encourage everyone in the development community to switch over now,
 even though the old fd.o infrastructure will still be maintained.
 Distributions are free to wait until the next release announcement
 before updating anything.

 If github does not work out, we will see what else we can try out. But
 lets give it at least a try.

Short update trying to answer all the questions:

Our preferred way to send future patches is the github way. This
means sending pull-requests to the github repo. Furthermore, all
feature patches should go through pull-requests and should get
reviewed pre-commit. This applies to everyone. Exceptions are
non-controversial patches like typos and obvious bug-fixes.
The exact 'rules' on when to merge a pull-request need to be figured
out once we get going. Ideas welcome! Until then, just apply common
sense. Push-access can be granted to contributors like before.
However, given that we want a pre-commit review model, it will not
make much of a difference which person eventually merges the patches.
We still highly appreciate the effort spent by many commiters to
review and apply trivial changes up to critical bugfixes. This worked
well and we want to keep this model, but avoid it for any feature
development.

The mailing-list will still be used for non-code related discussions,
and I think (?) patches from new contributors on the ML might still be
handled as before. But I guess this is mostly limited to trivial
patches. Bigger patchsets should really go through github to avoid
them getting lost on mailing-lists.
Regarding the bug-tracker, I honestly don't know what the plan is. I
think the plan is to stick to everything github provides us, to make
sure we don't spread our tools across multiple hosts. However, I
personally would prefer to discuss this in the community and see what
issues come up. Anyone?

The reason behind this move is that our current post-commit model
places a high burden on anyone doing a release. It really does not
scale and requires often more than a month to review everything. It is
hard to distribute the workload as the infrastructure doesn't provide
any help here. The result could be seen with the several hiccups
during the 220 release.
Furthermore, we want to avoid miscommunications on bigger feature
patches that might not make it into upstream. With a pre-commit
review, we hope to settle discussions before any code makes it into
git, and save everyone the hassle of reverting patches which maybe
other projects already relied on.

Regarding the final github address: David Strauss kindly offered the
'systemd' user to us. Hence, we hope to move the repository to
github.com/systemd/systemd this week. Sorry for the confusion, I hope
we can settle all this this week.

Finally, please speak up if there are any issues. I will do my best to
address them. We want to tryout github to reduce the burden on the
maintainers, but to also improve the interactions with outside
contributions. Feedback is welcome! And to everyone not happy with
that move, we'd appreciate if you could still give it a try. Lets see
how it works out!

Thanks
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson




On 06/02/2015 11:48 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:

On 2 June 2015 at 12:34, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:


On 06/02/2015 11:06 AM, David Herrmann wrote:

Regarding the final github address: David Strauss kindly offered the
'systemd' user to us. Hence, we hope to move the repository to
github.com/systemd/systemd this week. Sorry for the confusion, I hope
we can settle all this this week.


Given that you are moving into the direction that I had anticipated we
needed to do ( pull-requests ) but was hesitated to ask about ( when I have
been working on my infrastructure proposal for the systemd community ) since
I though it would not fly by since it limits somewhats Lennart's drive by
patches concept, I have to ask is moving this to a 3rd party hosting site
the best thing to do?


yes. There are more drive-by people on github, than there are those
that know where freedesktop.org cgit is, where systemd wiki is, where
systemd mailing list is, and how to setup MTA to not mangle patches,
and send them through. And even if there are drive-by people who shoot
an email to the mailing list, we have enough reviewers / comiters who
will be able to apply that.


In my proposal which touches quite few other things ( including replacing
both bugzilla and freedesktop wiki ) which is necessary to make things work
smoothly for future growth/expansion in the community and systemd adoption,
is it not better we would host this ourselves under our own domain ( I have
already secured systemd.community domain for that purpose ) on our own
instances?


maintaining /own/ infrastructure does not improve systemd code base.


Do people prefer these things being hosted at sites which one does not have
full control over?

adequate infrastructure is sufficient here. there is no paranoia about
hypothetical full control, or lack of it. if everything fails, most of
us have systemd git clones to move things elsewhere again. Or when we
find something better to use.



There are more things that need to be done than simply move the git 
repository and there are more people involved in community projects than 
strictly developers and those needs need to be taken into account as 
well.


And is not github bound to those idiotic us export control laws which 
might exclude individuals from certain country's to obtain and or 
contribute to the project?


JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 04:03:59PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
Hi

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 03:31:19PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 06/02/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Regarding the final github address: David Strauss kindly offered the
'systemd' user to us. Hence, we hope to move the repository to
github.com/systemd/systemd this week. Sorry for the confusion, I hope
we can settle all this this week.

I recommend you get this sorted out as soon as possible and not wait
another moment. People have already submitted pull requests to both
repos, and things are going to get quite confusing if you don't move
fast on this.

It's sorted out now. https://github.com/systemd/systemd is now the
official upstream. The old repo from systemd-devs was transferred
withing GitHub, which means that the old web and ssh URLs are currently
redirected automatically. However, we will remove the systemd-devs
organization any time soon to avoid further confusion.
Who has write access to the repository? If you could add me (keszybz @
github),
that would be nice. What about the rest of people from annarchy.fd.o:
david,walters,kay,harald,tfheen,lennart,whot,mbiebl,holtmann,alban,martin,colin,bor,michich,zbyszek,dreisner,straussd,tomegun,phomes,auke,dvdhrm,zonque,bphilips,msekleta,lnykryn,pflykt,rchevalier?

Daniel added them all. We just had to figure out the github
user-names. You should have an invitation in your inbox.
Thanks, it worked.

Zbyszek
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Martin Pitt

David Herrmann [2015-06-02 13:06 +0200]:
 Our preferred way to send future patches is the github way. This
 means sending pull-requests to the github repo. Furthermore, all
 feature patches should go through pull-requests and should get
 reviewed pre-commit. This applies to everyone. Exceptions are
 non-controversial patches like typos and obvious bug-fixes.

Makes sense. On the operational level, should we use the
automatically merge feature of git hub once approving? On the plus
side it's very convenient, but you'll get one Merge commit for every
PR (which is often just one commit), so we'd almost double the entries
in git log. Or can github be told to not do that?

Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
cleaner git log history.

Thanks,

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 04:34:03PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
 David Herrmann [2015-06-02 13:06 +0200]:
  Our preferred way to send future patches is the github way. This
  means sending pull-requests to the github repo. Furthermore, all
  feature patches should go through pull-requests and should get
  reviewed pre-commit. This applies to everyone. Exceptions are
  non-controversial patches like typos and obvious bug-fixes.
 
 Makes sense. On the operational level, should we use the
 automatically merge feature of git hub once approving? On the plus
 side it's very convenient, but you'll get one Merge commit for every
 PR (which is often just one commit), so we'd almost double the entries
 in git log. Or can github be told to not do that?
 
 Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
 remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
 cleaner git log history.
I'd very much prefer to keep current look of the git tree, without
gratuitous merge commits. For bigger changes, which are composed of
a larger number of commits, merges are fine. But most patchsets to systmed
are either a single commit or two or three.

Zbyszek
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 03:31:19PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
 On 06/02/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
  On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com 
  wrote:
  Regarding the final github address: David Strauss kindly offered the
  'systemd' user to us. Hence, we hope to move the repository to
  github.com/systemd/systemd this week. Sorry for the confusion, I hope
  we can settle all this this week.
  
  I recommend you get this sorted out as soon as possible and not wait
  another moment. People have already submitted pull requests to both
  repos, and things are going to get quite confusing if you don't move
  fast on this.
 
 It's sorted out now. https://github.com/systemd/systemd is now the
 official upstream. The old repo from systemd-devs was transferred
 withing GitHub, which means that the old web and ssh URLs are currently
 redirected automatically. However, we will remove the systemd-devs
 organization any time soon to avoid further confusion.
Who has write access to the repository? If you could add me (keszybz @ github),
that would be nice. What about the rest of people from annarchy.fd.o: 
david,walters,kay,harald,tfheen,lennart,whot,mbiebl,holtmann,alban,martin,colin,bor,michich,zbyszek,dreisner,straussd,tomegun,phomes,auke,dvdhrm,zonque,bphilips,msekleta,lnykryn,pflykt,rchevalier?

Zbyszek
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On 2 June 2015 at 12:34, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:


 On 06/02/2015 11:06 AM, David Herrmann wrote:

 Regarding the final github address: David Strauss kindly offered the
 'systemd' user to us. Hence, we hope to move the repository to
 github.com/systemd/systemd this week. Sorry for the confusion, I hope
 we can settle all this this week.


 Given that you are moving into the direction that I had anticipated we
 needed to do ( pull-requests ) but was hesitated to ask about ( when I have
 been working on my infrastructure proposal for the systemd community ) since
 I though it would not fly by since it limits somewhats Lennart's drive by
 patches concept, I have to ask is moving this to a 3rd party hosting site
 the best thing to do?


yes. There are more drive-by people on github, than there are those
that know where freedesktop.org cgit is, where systemd wiki is, where
systemd mailing list is, and how to setup MTA to not mangle patches,
and send them through. And even if there are drive-by people who shoot
an email to the mailing list, we have enough reviewers / comiters who
will be able to apply that.

 In my proposal which touches quite few other things ( including replacing
 both bugzilla and freedesktop wiki ) which is necessary to make things work
 smoothly for future growth/expansion in the community and systemd adoption,
 is it not better we would host this ourselves under our own domain ( I have
 already secured systemd.community domain for that purpose ) on our own
 instances?


maintaining /own/ infrastructure does not improve systemd code base.

 Do people prefer these things being hosted at sites which one does not have
 full control over?

adequate infrastructure is sufficient here. there is no paranoia about
hypothetical full control, or lack of it. if everything fails, most of
us have systemd git clones to move things elsewhere again. Or when we
find something better to use.

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.
Pura Vida!

https://clearlinux.org
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread David Herrmann

Daniel added them all. We just had to figure out the github
user-names. You should have an invitation in your inbox.

Thanks
David
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Daniel Mack

On 06/02/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Regarding the final github address: David Strauss kindly offered the
 'systemd' user to us. Hence, we hope to move the repository to
 github.com/systemd/systemd this week. Sorry for the confusion, I hope
 we can settle all this this week.
 
 I recommend you get this sorted out as soon as possible and not wait
 another moment. People have already submitted pull requests to both
 repos, and things are going to get quite confusing if you don't move
 fast on this.

It's sorted out now. https://github.com/systemd/systemd is now the
official upstream. The old repo from systemd-devs was transferred
withing GitHub, which means that the old web and ssh URLs are currently
redirected automatically. However, we will remove the systemd-devs
organization any time soon to avoid further confusion.


Thanks,
Daniel
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Regarding the final github address: David Strauss kindly offered the
 'systemd' user to us. Hence, we hope to move the repository to
 github.com/systemd/systemd this week. Sorry for the confusion, I hope
 we can settle all this this week.

I recommend you get this sorted out as soon as possible and not wait
another moment. People have already submitted pull requests to both
repos, and things are going to get quite confusing if you don't move
fast on this.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On 2 June 2015 at 15:34, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote:
 David Herrmann [2015-06-02 13:06 +0200]:
 Our preferred way to send future patches is the github way. This
 means sending pull-requests to the github repo. Furthermore, all
 feature patches should go through pull-requests and should get
 reviewed pre-commit. This applies to everyone. Exceptions are
 non-controversial patches like typos and obvious bug-fixes.

 Makes sense. On the operational level, should we use the
 automatically merge feature of git hub once approving? On the plus
 side it's very convenient, but you'll get one Merge commit for every
 PR (which is often just one commit), so we'd almost double the entries
 in git log. Or can github be told to not do that?

 Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
 remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
 cleaner git log history.

One doesn't need to add a named remote

If you have write access, at the bottom of the pull request there is a
link to command line instructions, excluding make sure you are on the
right target branch and you know where to push it boils down to:

git pull https://github.com/somebody/systemd.git branch-name-that-was-proposed

one step.

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.
Pura Vida!

https://clearlinux.org
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Daniel P. Berrange

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 04:34:03PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
 David Herrmann [2015-06-02 13:06 +0200]:
  Our preferred way to send future patches is the github way. This
  means sending pull-requests to the github repo. Furthermore, all
  feature patches should go through pull-requests and should get
  reviewed pre-commit. This applies to everyone. Exceptions are
  non-controversial patches like typos and obvious bug-fixes.
 
 Makes sense. On the operational level, should we use the
 automatically merge feature of git hub once approving? On the plus
 side it's very convenient, but you'll get one Merge commit for every
 PR (which is often just one commit), so we'd almost double the entries
 in git log. Or can github be told to not do that?
 
 Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
 remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
 cleaner git log history.

FWIW,  'git log --no-merges' displays the clean history when
merges are present.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com  -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org   -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org   -o-   http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

2015-06-02 Thread Kay Sievers

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote:
 David Herrmann [2015-06-02 13:06 +0200]:
 Our preferred way to send future patches is the github way. This
 means sending pull-requests to the github repo. Furthermore, all
 feature patches should go through pull-requests and should get
 reviewed pre-commit. This applies to everyone. Exceptions are
 non-controversial patches like typos and obvious bug-fixes.

 Makes sense. On the operational level, should we use the
 automatically merge feature of git hub once approving? On the plus
 side it's very convenient, but you'll get one Merge commit for every
 PR (which is often just one commit), so we'd almost double the entries
 in git log. Or can github be told to not do that?

 Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
 remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
 cleaner git log history.

Use github.

With the decision to move to github, we need to accept the github
model and with that accept possible cosmetic issues.

If it turns out to be too crazy, we have to question github, not
fiddle around with local rebases.

Kay
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github

On 2 June 2015 at 15:56, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 04:34:03PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
 David Herrmann [2015-06-02 13:06 +0200]:
  Our preferred way to send future patches is the github way. This
  means sending pull-requests to the github repo. Furthermore, all
  feature patches should go through pull-requests and should get
  reviewed pre-commit. This applies to everyone. Exceptions are
  non-controversial patches like typos and obvious bug-fixes.

 Makes sense. On the operational level, should we use the
 automatically merge feature of git hub once approving? On the plus
 side it's very convenient, but you'll get one Merge commit for every
 PR (which is often just one commit), so we'd almost double the entries
 in git log. Or can github be told to not do that?

 Merging manually is quite a bit of work, as you have to add a new
 remote every time, fetch that, and pull from it. But it does keep a
 cleaner git log history.

 FWIW,  'git log --no-merges' displays the clean history when
 merges are present.

I also like --first-parent a lot, that squishes the pull request
into the single commit in the log / graph (aka bzr style default log
output).

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.
Pura Vida!

https://clearlinux.org
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd. - Co. Reg. #1134945 - Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Git development moved to github