Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Rajeev Bhatta]

+1

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 14:05:01 -0400
Martin Klapetek  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Eike Hein  wrote:
> 
> > On 09/19/2015 07:49 PM, Martin Klapetek wrote:
> > > We wouldn't get no lock-in though. Not even remotely. It will
> > > simply be another path for an incoming patch. If the patch in
> > > question ends up on Phabricator and gets reviewed on Phabricator
> > > and merged from Phabricator, it is no different than the patch
> > > initially arriving by
> > email,
> > > irc/paste etc. Just a different input route.
> >
> > That doesn't address Sune's concern though. If you
> > get a patch by email you can reply by email; the
> > comm channel stays the same. Ditto IRC. If you file
> > a pull req on GitHub and it gets imported into Phab
> > which you don't have an account for yet and can't
> > interact with using the same client (git, or the
> > website you were using) you were already using, you
> > are inserting a hump in that. The requestee wouldn't
> > even get emails about review comments unless the bot
> > does complicated steps like trying to use the GitHub
> > API to read out an account email (if it even can).
> >
> 
> You'd have the email from the commit already though.
> 
> The bot could be extended (over time, even) to be capable of posting
> comments back, even a simple "there's a new comment on your patch
> at ". If the user will care, s/he will care. If not, then it
> ends up as hundreds of already unattended patches on reviewboard,
> where the original submitter didn't respond to questions and/or
> didn't update the patch.
> 
> A concrete example: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105932/
> 
> Patch from 2012 with open questions/issues from a newcomer(?), left
> unattended. Having the same on Phabricator with the source being
> github would be no different, would it? And there _will_ be patches
> left to rot on Phabricator anyway, just like hundreds of them right
> now on Reviewboard.
> 
> Auto-import is a slight improvement over auto-reject
> > on the "it snubs people" front, but it's not a big
> > one and it creates a lot of practical concerns. Some
> > of those could be addressed with more code, if some-
> > one writes it - but then it should be written and
> > tested and evluated before we enable that channel.
> >
> 
> Sure. It's _a_ solution. I don't claim it's a perfect one, but it is
> one.
> 
> Cheers
> -- 
> Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer


-- 
Rajeev Bhatta 
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Bhushan Shah]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Martin Klapetek
 wrote:
>
> Gnome in their years history of github mirroring had 4 pull requests
> (it was mentioned in the other thread...one of the others).

Sorry no [1]

https://github.com/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+org%3Agnome



-- 
Bhushan Shah

http://bhush9.github.io
IRC Nick : bshah on Freenode
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Riccardo Iaconelli]

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 10:50:43 AM Martin Klapetek wrote:
> Gnome in their years history of github mirroring had 4 pull requests
> (it was mentioned in the other thread...one of the others).
> 
> So we might very likely be talking non-issues here anyway.


100% agreed

-Riccardo

___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Eike Hein]

On 09/20/2015 02:26 PM, Loïc Grobol wrote:
> Let's try not to be extreme. If someone was able to post a pull
> request, they should be able to switch to Phab if they want to
> participate when notified.

Let's not be naive, either. People are lazy. That's been
one of the arguments for enabling GitHub pull requests.


> I don't follow here. How would making Phab post at Github/retrieve
> GitHub post (if we indeed go this way)
> would lock Phab into anything?

It means you need to convert posts, and you can't convert
what the opposite tool doesn't support. Dropping fidelity
down to crosslinks might be an option though.



Cheers,
Eike
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Loïc Grobol]

On 20 September 2015 at 14:29, Eike Hein  wrote:
> Let's not be naive, either. People are lazy. That's been
> one of the arguments for enabling GitHub pull requests.

IIRC the main argument was not laziness, it was discoverability. But
if we have a nice wiki page to guide people in the switching process,
it should be relatively painless. In any way, we can still try and see
if the issue actually occurs. Granted even before that, we can see if
there is enough pull request attempts to justify writing such a bot.

L

-- 
Loïc Grobol.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Martin Klapetek]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Loïc Grobol  wrote:

> Granted even before that, we can see if

there is enough pull request attempts to justify writing such a bot.
>

Gnome in their years history of github mirroring had 4 pull requests
(it was mentioned in the other thread...one of the others).

So we might very likely be talking non-issues here anyway.

Cheers
-- 
Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Martin Klapetek]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:59 AM, David Edmundson <
da...@davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote:

>
> I said that number but wrt "GTK" not "Gnome"
>

Oops, my apologies then. Somehow I've interchanged them in my memory.

Cheers
-- 
Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Loïc Grobol]

On 19 September 2015 at 20:14, Eike Hein  wrote:
> Making the bot post Phab traffic back to GitHub is a
> fix to the notification problem, but doesn't help with
> getting the requestee to participate unless you make a
> full bridge.
Let's try not to be extreme. If someone was able to post a pull
request, they should be able to switch to Phab if they want to
participate when notified.

> And if you make a full bridge, you run into
> problems with things like converting markup or generally
> limiting both review sites to the subset of shared
> functionality. And then we just locked Phabricator into
> only using functionality supported by a proprietary tool
> we can't change, which means we strapped ourselves to the
> non-free tool after all.
I don't follow here. How would making Phab post at Github/retrieve
GitHub post (if we indeed go this way)
would lock Phab into anything?





-- 
Loïc Grobol.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Riccardo Iaconelli]

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 02:39:53 PM Loïc Grobol wrote:
> IIRC the main argument was not laziness, it was discoverability. But
> if we have a nice wiki page to guide people in the switching process,
> it should be relatively painless. In any way, we can still try and see
> if the issue actually occurs. Granted even before that, we can see if
> there is enough pull request attempts to justify writing such a bot.

David already made one, but I think it got lost in the threads...

-Riccardo

___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Martin Klapetek]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Eike Hein  wrote:

> On 09/20/2015 02:26 PM, Loïc Grobol wrote:
> > Let's try not to be extreme. If someone was able to post a pull
> > request, they should be able to switch to Phab if they want to
> > participate when notified.
>
> Let's not be naive, either. People are lazy. That's been
> one of the arguments for enabling GitHub pull requests.
>

People are lazy with Reviewboard too. I see no difference in that
really. There are currently about 1200 (!!!) open reviews, some as
old as 2011.

If people want to follow the patch through, they will, if they don't
they won't, no matter the toolset. Reviewboard is a nice example
of that.

Cheers
-- 
Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[David Edmundson]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Martin Klapetek 
wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Bhushan Shah  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Martin Klapetek
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Gnome in their years history of github mirroring had 4 pull requests
>> > (it was mentioned in the other thread...one of the others).
>>
>> Sorry no [1]
>>
>> https://github.com/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+org%3Agnome
>
>
> Cool. I admit I haven't checked, as I said it's a number from
> one of the 300 threads going on.
>
> I said that number but wrt "GTK" not "Gnome"

David
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Martin Klapetek]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Bhushan Shah  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Martin Klapetek
>  wrote:
> >
> > Gnome in their years history of github mirroring had 4 pull requests
> > (it was mentioned in the other thread...one of the others).
>
> Sorry no [1]
>
> https://github.com/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+org%3Agnome


Cool. I admit I haven't checked, as I said it's a number from
one of the 300 threads going on.

Now we have some idea at least. <400 in a span of 3 years
isn't that much still, especially for a project like Gnome.

Cheers
-- 
Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2015-09-20, Martin Klapetek  wrote:
> Gnome in their years history of github mirroring had 4 pull requests
> (it was mentioned in the other thread...one of the others).
>
> So we might very likely be talking non-issues here anyway.

Gnome is actively advicing against pull requests. In order to get close
to the same numbers, we should also advice against pull requests.

https://wiki.gnome.org/Sysadmin/GitHub

/Sune

___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Laszlo Papp]

Hi Martin,

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Martin Klapetek
 wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Laszlo Papp  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sure, but why would increase this situation further on?
>
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this question.

I missed the subject "we" in that sentence, apparently; I apologise.

What I was trying to say is the fact that you mentioned an existing
unfortunate situation and instead of reducing that as muc as possible,
you seem to put it as an excuse for potentially increasing that
further on. In other words, I would go the other way around: how can
we reduce the personal emails? Perhaps, we need to be more explicit? I
understand and appreciate that it cannot be entirely eliminated, but I
do not think it is wise to argue with them for a suboptimal case.

>> I agree with everything that Sune wrote. Reaching them might be
>> particularly important when changing license just for one of those.
>> There could be numerous other valid examples.
>>
>> Why put energy into making sure that they can diverge from the normal
>> workflow rather than putting energy on making sure that the workflow
>> is known and easy to get?
>
>
> To get the best of both worlds.

It is not all sweetie and cookie, I believe. It is not a win/win as
the long and many emails show. :)

There are drawbacks coming with that, so you will not necessarily get
the best of both words in my personal opinion, but we may respectfully
agree to disagree in there. That is fine.

>> There used to be life before github, too. This is exactly the vendor
>> lock-in, when some people can no longer breat without it for such
>> simple things.
>
>
> We wouldn't get no lock-in though. Not even remotely. It will simply
> be another path for an incoming patch. If the patch in question ends
> up on Phabricator and gets reviewed on Phabricator and merged from
> Phabricator, it is no different than the patch initially arriving by email,
> irc/paste etc. Just a different input route.

Yeah, I apologise; I did not mean a lock-in for KDE, but for the
mindset of those "newbie contributors". I will reiterate it once again
in the same email not to skip my point when considering my email: we
ought to put more focus on how to propagate the right infrastructure
rather than putting energy into circumventing that. We do not have
unlimited resources. As some other people already wrote it, I would
hate to explain it all the time, why I do not support the opt-in
feature in my own project. It would get tedious, if not demotivating,
over time.

>
> Cheers
> --
> Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
>
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Martin Klapetek]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Eike Hein  wrote:

> On 09/19/2015 07:49 PM, Martin Klapetek wrote:
> > We wouldn't get no lock-in though. Not even remotely. It will simply
> > be another path for an incoming patch. If the patch in question ends
> > up on Phabricator and gets reviewed on Phabricator and merged from
> > Phabricator, it is no different than the patch initially arriving by
> email,
> > irc/paste etc. Just a different input route.
>
> That doesn't address Sune's concern though. If you
> get a patch by email you can reply by email; the
> comm channel stays the same. Ditto IRC. If you file
> a pull req on GitHub and it gets imported into Phab
> which you don't have an account for yet and can't
> interact with using the same client (git, or the
> website you were using) you were already using, you
> are inserting a hump in that. The requestee wouldn't
> even get emails about review comments unless the bot
> does complicated steps like trying to use the GitHub
> API to read out an account email (if it even can).
>

You'd have the email from the commit already though.

The bot could be extended (over time, even) to be capable of posting
comments back, even a simple "there's a new comment on your patch
at ". If the user will care, s/he will care. If not, then it ends up
as hundreds of already unattended patches on reviewboard, where the
original submitter didn't respond to questions and/or didn't update the
patch.

A concrete example: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105932/

Patch from 2012 with open questions/issues from a newcomer(?), left
unattended. Having the same on Phabricator with the source being github
would be no different, would it? And there _will_ be patches left to rot
on Phabricator anyway, just like hundreds of them right now on Reviewboard.

Auto-import is a slight improvement over auto-reject
> on the "it snubs people" front, but it's not a big
> one and it creates a lot of practical concerns. Some
> of those could be addressed with more code, if some-
> one writes it - but then it should be written and
> tested and evluated before we enable that channel.
>

Sure. It's _a_ solution. I don't claim it's a perfect one, but it is one.

Cheers
-- 
Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Martin Klapetek]

To further expand on the idea, the workflow would be as follows:

* bot looks through our repos
* bot finds a pull request
* bot downloads the diff between requested branch and mirror HEAD
* bot uploads it to phabricator as any other patch
* bot posts message to github "Thanks for your patch, in KDE we use
phabricator for reviewing and merging patches, so your pull request was
posted here . If you want to follow it through, please continue the
discussion at . Thanks a lot for your contribution!"
* contributor follows on phabricator

The problem is the needed identity account to follow it through though.

Cheers
-- 
Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2015-09-19, Martin Klapetek  wrote:
> To further expand on the idea, the workflow would be as follows:
>
> * bot looks through our repos
> * bot finds a pull request
> * bot downloads the diff between requested branch and mirror HEAD
> * bot uploads it to phabricator as any other patch
> * bot posts message to github "Thanks for your patch, in KDE we use
> phabricator for reviewing and merging patches, so your pull request was
> posted here . If you want to follow it through, please continue the
> discussion at . Thanks a lot for your contribution!"
> * contributor follows on phabricator

What happens if contributor doesn't follows? How do I as a reviewer know
why the contributor doesn't follow on? How can I reach them?

No. let's just say no to pull requests.

/Sune

___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Riccardo Iaconelli]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 01:17:18 PM Martin Klapetek wrote:
> To further expand on the idea, the workflow would be as follows:
> 
> * bot looks through our repos
> * bot finds a pull request
> * bot downloads the diff between requested branch and mirror HEAD
> * bot uploads it to phabricator as any other patch
> * bot posts message to github "Thanks for your patch, in KDE we use
> phabricator for reviewing and merging patches, so your pull request was
> posted here . If you want to follow it through, please continue the
> discussion at . Thanks a lot for your contribution!"
> * contributor follows on phabricator

I would say that is amazing!

Trick the user into making a quick fix+pull request (standard workflow for 
him) and we automagically import his work in our infrastructure, ready for 
review. "Woo" from his side and moral obbligation to get a KDE account. :D

I love it.

Bye,
-Riccardo

___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Martin Klapetek]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Sune Vuorela  wrote:

>
> What happens if contributor doesn't follows? How do I as a reviewer know
> why the contributor doesn't follow on? How can I reach them?
>
> No. let's just say no to pull requests.
>

Same thing as when someone emails you a patch and you reply and ask
questions and never hear back. That happens quite often already.

Cheers
-- 
Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Laszlo Papp]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Martin Klapetek
 wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Sune Vuorela  wrote:
>>
>>
>> What happens if contributor doesn't follows? How do I as a reviewer know
>> why the contributor doesn't follow on? How can I reach them?
>>
>> No. let's just say no to pull requests.
>
>
> Same thing as when someone emails you a patch and you reply and ask
> questions and never hear back. That happens quite often already.

Sure, but why would increase this situation further on?

I agree with everything that Sune wrote. Reaching them might be
particularly important when changing license just for one of those.
There could be numerous other valid examples.

Why put energy into making sure that they can diverge from the normal
workflow rather than putting energy on making sure that the workflow
is known and easy to get?

There used to be life before github, too. This is exactly the vendor
lock-in, when some people can no longer breat without it for such
simple things.

>
> Cheers
> --
> Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
>
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 1:04:22 PM CEST Martin Klapetek wrote:
> Look, if the problem of github pull requests is the concern of KDE
> reviews eventually moving there (and create pressure on others etc),
> why don't we all throw one afternoon of our time and write a bot
> that will automatically import the pull request as a patch into phabricator?
> 
> That way, creating a pull request on github would get automatically
> imported on phabricator where we all could a) review it b) merge it
> without actually moving to github, but simply utilizing its resources.
> Seems like a win-win?
> 
> We could even base it on that bot that is automatically closing those
> pull requests that was linked twice already.
> 
> The only limitation I see is the needed Identity account for submitting
> patches on phabricator (right?), but other than that, how hard can it
> be(tm)?

+1 I like the idea

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community