Well, I’m not sure savannah allows this, but one way to limit anarchical and 
gratuitous commits is to refuse (with help of a pre-commit hook, see 
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Hooks) any commit that does 
not refer to a ticket.

This way, when you want to do something you must before enter a ticket or refer 
to an existing ticket


 Item ID http://savannah.nongnu.org/images/Savannah.theme/arrows/up.png



 Assigned to

 Submitted on


 <http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?48900> FreeBSD fails with -run





$ git commit –m “Fix std library path with –run on FreeBSD”

Git pre-commit hook error: commit string does not refer to a ticket


$ git commit –m “Fix std library path with –run on FreeBSD, refs #66666”


This is something redmine (http://www.redmine.org/) can do for example. 



From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On 
Behalf Of David Mertens
Sent: dimanche 16 octobre 2016 15:25
To: avih; tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Governance (Re: cleanups)


I am less concerned about losing this kind of meta-info, as I expect we would 
continue discussion primarily on the mailing list. Mailing lists seem to me to 
be much better venues for discussion than the facilities provided by github.

My bigger concern is: who would be the project managers? Who would manage pull 
requests? I would volunteer for some of it, but I could only guarantee 
responsiveness during winter and summer breaks, and would want to hand off 
responsibility during my school's semesters. Are others willing to step up? If 
not, we shouldn't move to a github/pull-requests workflow.



On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 7:13 AM, avih <avih...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I also think github could be good to tinycc.


The obvious reasons were mentioned: Arguably easier and more open 
collaboration, bug reports and tracking, automatic builds and tests, possibly 
better exposure to other people, etc.


There's one thing though which github doesn't make easy as far as I know: all 
the discussions, comments, code reviews, tagging (of issues) are not easy to 
export as far as I know. The project's wiki pages are in a git repo which the 
project owns (separate from the project's code), but as far as I know all the 
text which people enter (other than at commits) is available at most only via 
some github API. This is a lot of info which would be a shame to lose if github 
closes its doors tomorrow.


While github is definitely used as the main host for some big projects, and 
while I maintain some projects on github myself (on my own and with others), 
I'd be much more comfortable if I knew all discussions/comments/etc are being 
mirrored to an external host under the project's control, even if only in a 
read-only format.


FWIW, I know such export tools exist, but I haven't used them and I don't know 
how good they are.


Overall, I'd vote to move tinycc to github, with the caveat that it'd be nice 
to also have an external archive of all the discussions, issues, reviews, etc.


On Sunday, October 16, 2016 1:39 PM, Daniel Glöckner <daniel...@gmx.net> wrote:



on Github we could use Travis to run tests after every commit.
We could also use Qemu there to check if the other architectures still
work. It might also serve as an example how to setup a cross development
environment with TinyCC.

Best regards.


Tinycc-devel mailing list


Tinycc-devel mailing list


 "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
  Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
  by definition, not smart enough to debug it." -- Brian Kernighan

Tinycc-devel mailing list

Reply via email to