bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud

bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud

[Teodor Zlatanov]

I've published the proposed changes to the Gnus Cloud code in the branch
`scratch/gnus-cloud' and would like to request a code review. It's a
single commit which I've tested over the last 2 weeks with the help of
other Gnus users.

I'll add documentation if the code is acceptable.

Thank you
Ted

bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:05:55 -0400 Teodor Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 

TZ> I've published the proposed changes to the Gnus Cloud code in the branch
TZ> `scratch/gnus-cloud' and would like to request a code review. It's a
TZ> single commit which I've tested over the last 2 weeks with the help of
TZ> other Gnus users.

TZ> I'll add documentation if the code is acceptable.

Lars? You look like a good reviewer.

There is one piece I remembered was missing: making the cloud host
persistent. After restarting Gnus, you have to set the gnus-cloud-method
with `gnus-server-toggle-cloud-method-server' again. How would you
suggest to save that, with a defcustom in gnus-cloud or in the
individual server's parameters? Right now it's just

(defvar gnus-cloud-method nil
  "The IMAP select method used to store the cloud data.")

If I save it in the individual server's parameters there's a possibility
that two servers will have the cloud host flag accidentally.

Ted

bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:20:12 -0400 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 

TZ> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:05:55 -0400 Teodor Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 
TZ> I've published the proposed changes to the Gnus Cloud code in the branch
TZ> `scratch/gnus-cloud' and would like to request a code review. It's a
TZ> single commit which I've tested over the last 2 weeks with the help of
TZ> other Gnus users.

TZ> I'll add documentation if the code is acceptable.

TZ> There is one piece I remembered was missing: making the cloud host
TZ> persistent.

I converted `gnus-cloud-method' to a defcustom and added the necessary
code to set it, resolving this question.

Since no one has been interested in reviewing this code, I will merge it
tomorrow.

Ted

bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud

[npostavs]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:20:12 -0400 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 
>
> TZ> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:05:55 -0400 Teodor Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 
> TZ> I've published the proposed changes to the Gnus Cloud code in the branch
> TZ> `scratch/gnus-cloud' and would like to request a code review. It's a
> TZ> single commit which I've tested over the last 2 weeks with the help of
> TZ> other Gnus users.
>
> TZ> I'll add documentation if the code is acceptable.
>
> TZ> There is one piece I remembered was missing: making the cloud host
> TZ> persistent.
>
> I converted `gnus-cloud-method' to a defcustom and added the necessary
> code to set it, resolving this question.
>
> Since no one has been interested in reviewing this code, I will merge it
> tomorrow.

Perhaps this is partly because I'm not familiar with the code (or what
"Gnus Cloud" is), but it seems to me that you're missing a good summary
line explaining what any of these changes are for.  The bug title and
commit message summary line mentions only "Gnus Cloud work".  What
"work"?  This feels actively reviewer-hostile.

The 2nd commit titled "Minor gnus-cloud UI improvements" is a bit better
(at least we can tell it's about UI), though adding 20 or so "Merge
branch 'master' of git.sv.gnu.org:/srv/git/emacs" in between doesn't
help much either.

bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:18:09 -0400 npostavs@users.sourceforge.net wrote: 

>> I converted `gnus-cloud-method' to a defcustom and added the necessary
>> code to set it, resolving this question.
>> 
>> Since no one has been interested in reviewing this code, I will merge it
>> tomorrow.

n> Perhaps this is partly because I'm not familiar with the code (or what
n> "Gnus Cloud" is), but it seems to me that you're missing a good summary
n> line explaining what any of these changes are for.  The bug title and
n> commit message summary line mentions only "Gnus Cloud work".  What
n> "work"?  This feels actively reviewer-hostile.

You're right. The history of this work goes back at least 4 years in the
Gnus mailing list so I was hoping Lars or someone else familiar with
that history would jump in. You can start with the most recent log of
work I did:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/85543/focus=87091

I will write docs for the feature, but simply wasn't sure about some key
aspects of it that depended on the code.

Please note I did add docstrings for most of the functions, especially
the interactive ones. But I agree that's no excuse for a lack of good
commit messages.

n> The 2nd commit titled "Minor gnus-cloud UI improvements" is a bit better
n> (at least we can tell it's about UI), though adding 20 or so "Merge
n> branch 'master' of git.sv.gnu.org:/srv/git/emacs" in between doesn't
n> help much either.

Well, that's an issue with the source code repo. I've mentioned it
before. Here's my rant:

I merge the master branch often because I have been using the gnus-cloud
branch and want to make sure it's not broken against master. I also test
and use many other new features. I really don't want to start working
outside the master branch.

But I can't rebase and push again, because the repo doesn't support
non-fast-forward pushes. I have to delete and recreate the branch
(notification emails x2, and a little bit of manual labor). But also
every time I do a push with merges, notification e-mails come out for my
changes plus everything merged. I can't win either way.

So the bottom line for me is, I'd really like notification e-mails not
to go out for "scratch/*" branches, or to be able to do a
non-fast-forward push to my scratch branch. Since neither is possible,
I'm doing the best I can for now. I am strongly considering using Github
next time (Git supports multiple remotes for a branch, so this is not
too hard) and saving myself all this trouble.

You can use `git log --no-merges' meanwhile to filter out those merge
commits. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Ted

bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:50:07 -0400 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote: 

TZ> You're right. The history of this work goes back at least 4 years in the
TZ> Gnus mailing list so I was hoping Lars or someone else familiar with
TZ> that history would jump in. You can start with the most recent log of
TZ> work I did:

TZ> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/85543/focus=87091

TZ> I will write docs for the feature, but simply wasn't sure about some key
TZ> aspects of it that depended on the code.

I rebased and added docs for this feature. So now there's just three
commits in the scratch/gnus-cloud branch.

Let me know, based on the docs, what the commit message should say. I
can't think of a good summary, since the work is really widespread in
order to make this package useful.

Thanks
Ted

bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud

[Noam Postavsky]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:50:07 -0400 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:
>
> TZ> You're right. The history of this work goes back at least 4 years in the
> TZ> Gnus mailing list so I was hoping Lars or someone else familiar with
> TZ> that history would jump in. You can start with the most recent log of
> TZ> work I did:
>
> TZ> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/85543/focus=87091
>
> TZ> I will write docs for the feature, but simply wasn't sure about some key
> TZ> aspects of it that depended on the code.
>
> I rebased and added docs for this feature. So now there's just three
> commits in the scratch/gnus-cloud branch.
>
> Let me know, based on the docs, what the commit message should say. I
> can't think of a good summary, since the work is really widespread in
> order to make this package useful.

Maybe something like "Bring gnus-cloud.el into working order", I
gather from that thread that it was broken before, right? That's still
not very descriptive but it looks like there's just a lot of little
changes that aren't really tied together. Perhaps it would be better
broken up into more commits (though that's probably not worth the
trouble at this point).

bug#23945: 25.1.50; Request for review: Gnus Cloud work in scratch/gnus-cloud

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:36:12 -0400 Noam Postavsky <npostavs@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: 

NP> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:
>> Let me know, based on the docs, what the commit message should say. I
>> can't think of a good summary, since the work is really widespread in
>> order to make this package useful.

NP> Maybe something like "Bring gnus-cloud.el into working order", I
NP> gather from that thread that it was broken before, right? That's still
NP> not very descriptive but it looks like there's just a lot of little
NP> changes that aren't really tied together. Perhaps it would be better
NP> broken up into more commits (though that's probably not worth the
NP> trouble at this point).

All right... I squashed with the message you suggested. It's pushed so
I'll call this review done.

Ted