Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]

[Thomas Funk]

"Thomas Adam"  wrote:
> I was thinking along the lines of this diff:
> 
> https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/f81b2f4d7412813f12b235d8f1914409da0bbae9.patch
> 
> Which you can view rendered here:
> 
> https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/ta/git-docs/docs/DEVELOPERS.md
> 
> What do others think?

Thanks Thomas! It is really good and detailed instruction.

One point:
Should we use for development branches a special nomination like feature_xy, 
fix_abc?
Or only a README which describes the feature/fix?

To think about this point: 
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

-- Thomas --

Re: travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"

[Thomas Adam]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:48:55PM +0100, Viktor Griph wrote:
> Cool. Would it be possible to stick some unit test framework to it as well?

Sorry, Viktor, I missed this point the last time round.  Yes, that's
possible, and depending on how we decide to write unit tests, it can
just hook into the Travis configuration.  This isn't something I'm
wanting to look at myself just yet, but feel free to do so!

> Is our strategy for handling of branches and pull requests summarized
> anywhere?

I was thinking along the lines of this diff:

https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/f81b2f4d7412813f12b235d8f1914409da0bbae9.patch

Which you can view rendered here:

https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/ta/git-docs/docs/DEVELOPERS.md

What do others think?

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong.  But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)

Re: travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"

[Viktor Griph]

Den 24 mar 2016 5:22 em skrev "Thomas Adam" :
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've to document this formally, but I wanted to let you know of a few
options
> I've enabled for the "master" branch on the main fvwm Git repository.
>
> All pushes by default (across all branches) will now have Travis CI ran
> against them.  Travis is a Continuous Integration tool[1] which allows the
> code to be compiled.  If there's any errors, an email is sent out
indicating
> where the logs can be found[2].

Cool. Would it be possible to stick some unit test framework to it as well?

> Additionally, the master branch (which is where all the stable code
intended
> for releases ends up) now has protection enabled, which means code will
not be
> merged there by default, should Travis CI be unable to build it.  This
should
> help things be more robust, and provides a much more powerful alternative
to
> the old snapshot mechanisms of yesteryear.  This also means commits
directly
> on master are discouraged---but that's OK because we've discussed that
before.

Is our strategy for handling of branches and pull requests summarized
anywhere?

/Viktor

Re: travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"

[Thomas Adam]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:48:55PM +0100, Viktor Griph wrote:
> Is our strategy for handling of branches and pull requests summarized
> anywhere?

I'm working on that.  Will put that out for tenure later on today.

-- Thomas Adam

travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"

[Thomas Adam]

Hi all,

I've to document this formally, but I wanted to let you know of a few options
I've enabled for the "master" branch on the main fvwm Git repository.

All pushes by default (across all branches) will now have Travis CI ran
against them.  Travis is a Continuous Integration tool[1] which allows the
code to be compiled.  If there's any errors, an email is sent out indicating
where the logs can be found[2].  Note that I've set up a matrix job, which
means that _both_ GCC and clang builds have to succeed in order for a build to
be successful.  Over the last few years, I've found clang/LLVM to often give
better indications of problems than GCC, hence why I've enabled both.

Additionally, the master branch (which is where all the stable code intended
for releases ends up) now has protection enabled, which means code will not be
merged there by default, should Travis CI be unable to build it.  This should
help things be more robust, and provides a much more powerful alternative to
the old snapshot mechanisms of yesteryear.  This also means commits directly
on master are discouraged---but that's OK because we've discussed that before.

Any questions, do please let me know.

[1] https://travis-ci.org/
[2] https://travis-ci.org/fvwmorg/fvwm/builds

Re: FVWM website: WAS: [Re: FVWM code moved to Github]

[Thomas Adam]

On 24 March 2016 at 01:19, Dan Espen  wrote:
>> Thomas Adam  writes:
>> See previous paragraph, I do not think this is the right approach at all.
>
> I don't see the difference.
> Right now Jason pulls from CVS to build the pages at fvwm.org.
> He said he's willing to pull from Git instead.
> So, the fvwm-web can be in CVS or GIT, it doesn't matter,
> we just need Jason to decide where he wants to pull from.

Well, it makes all the difference, actually.  There's no need to pull
from anything if the eventual aim is to switch over to the fvwm-web
repository on Github.  One of the reasons for doing this way is it's
not only easy to set up, but it means _we_ as fvwm-workers@ don't need
to have the overhead of hosting it ourselves.

We can leave the fvwm-web version on fvwm.org as is, and just redirect
to fvwmorg.github.io as needed, when the work on the website is
complete.

Note that I can't remember if I've mentioned it already, but the
current "building" phase of the website relies on files from the fvwm
repository.  This will have to change, notably:

* We no longer need a NEWS file or Changelog---yes, we can have NEWS
items, but we'll have to handle that differently to how we do now.
* The FAQ is same; that file should be moved out of the fvwm
repository and into the website repository, ideally converted to use
Markdown---I've already done this to some of the files in the fvwm
repository, should you need an example.

> Well, CONGRATULATIONS.
> That's just great.

Cheers!

> I was married in 1964.
> I'm retiring as of March 31.

Oh, congratulations to you, too!  Do you have plans for your retirement, Dan?

Kindly,
Thomas