[yocto] [meta-raspberrypi] RFC on choice of tool for patch review
We've been having a discussion on a way forward to manage patches and code review and would like to open this up for discussion to agree a way forward. Options appear to be github, gerrit, or bitbucket although there may be others. This is in addition to continuing to send patches to the mailing list. Quote from Andrei, We dropped gerrit because at that time google dropped the support for loging in with their accounts and gerrit didn't support OAUTH. The only options left were involving me maintaining users / groups / permissions etc - which obviously didn't have the time for. So, at that time, we decided to use mailing list as the only way of patches review. Now, I work with github, bitbucket and gerrit and I definitely, as Alex said, feel the need of reviewing patches using a tool like these. But I want to state the fact that, even if we decide using them, we will still need to send patches to mailing list too - so we can keep the awareness of this project. In terms of preference, I don't really have one. The easiest would be github/bitbucket but I can invest some time in installing gerrit back (as they now have the required support for google accounts logins). So, I consider this is a community decision and, if a have to vote, I would go for github. Quote from Petter, About using github and similar, I'm a huge fan of gerrit [...] Gerrit is really nice for reviewing and working closely together with similar changesets that are ongoing.. ... For my five euro-cents, I have used Gerrit a little and GitHub more. I found Gerrit hard to get to grips with, but have been impressed with GitHub. So my own preference would be to use github as the UI and fork/pull-req/commenting support all seems very accessible and intuitive. Can others comment? Thanks, Alex -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi] RFC on choice of tool for patch review
On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 10:17 +0100, Alex J Lennon wrote: We've been having a discussion on a way forward to manage patches and code review and would like to open this up for discussion to agree a way forward. There's http://patchwork.openembedded.org/. I'm not sure who maintains it, nor if anyone uses it, but patches sent to the mailing list end up there. OOI who are we in this context? What benefits would a change bring? Cheers, Joshua -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi] RFC on choice of tool for patch review
On 12/08/2015 10:45, Joshua Lock wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 10:25 +0100, Joshua Lock wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 10:17 +0100, Alex J Lennon wrote: We've been having a discussion on a way forward to manage patches and code review and would like to open this up for discussion to agree a way forward. There's http://patchwork.openembedded.org/. I'm not sure who maintains it, nor if anyone uses it, but patches sent to the mailing list end up there. OOI who are we in this context? What benefits would a change bring? I managed to miss both the [yocto] and [meta-raspberrypi] tags on this mail, apologies for that. I guess that we are the meta-raspberrypi maintainers. Yes :) Andrei (maintainer) was using Gerrit but that went away for reasons outlined in the preceding email. Some visibility and control of the review process has been lost as a result and so it was suggested we kick off a conversation on what tooling to use to restore that. Still, the patchwork instance may be an option? The meta-freescale layers appear to be using it. Many thanks! Cheers, Alex -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi] RFC on choice of tool for patch review
On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 10:25 +0100, Joshua Lock wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 10:17 +0100, Alex J Lennon wrote: We've been having a discussion on a way forward to manage patches and code review and would like to open this up for discussion to agree a way forward. There's http://patchwork.openembedded.org/. I'm not sure who maintains it, nor if anyone uses it, but patches sent to the mailing list end up there. OOI who are we in this context? What benefits would a change bring? I managed to miss both the [yocto] and [meta-raspberrypi] tags on this mail, apologies for that. I guess that we are the meta-raspberrypi maintainers. Still, the patchwork instance may be an option? The meta-freescale layers appear to be using it. Cheers, Joshua -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
