From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: pull requests Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:54:30 +0300 Message-ID: <83mu828c7d.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87mu87ji39.fsf@dick> <87v9mvp2ms.fsf@blind.guru> <87d093f6lj.fsf@dick> <87369yc79r.fsf@dick> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="62120"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mlang@delysid.org, philippe.vaucher@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, jackhill@jackhill.us, dick.r.chiang@gmail.com To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 27 08:55:08 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jHjpc-000Fzx-PF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 08:55:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38200 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jHjpb-0007Gf-RI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 03:55:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:32878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jHjp8-0006jQ-6X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 03:54:39 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:52108) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jHjp7-0002s5-9e; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 03:54:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2768 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jHjp0-00014U-5p; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 03:54:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:59:35 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:245833 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:59:35 -0400 > Cc: mlang@delysid.org, jackhill@jackhill.us, dick.r.chiang@gmail.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > I don't remember the precise conclusions last year, but ISTR I > concluded that any pull requests on a GNU forge must be visible _only_ > to the developers of the package. IIRC, the most important, at least IMO, conclusion was that we should host such services on savannah.nongnu.org, so that any code in those pull requests is not considered to "belong to GNU". > Can someone find that previous discussion and show its actual conclusions? > With a single Message-ID field I could find the discussion. It was on gnu-prog-discuss, not here. One message-ID I have from that discussion is 871rv8suni.fsf@gnu.org. There was some "shadow" of that in this mailing list in last November, try message-ID 83sgmhxp1i.fsf@gnu.org. > > Question for maintainers: is it actually mandatory that all changes are > > submitted through patches on the ML? If we need to submit lot of > > patches, can we just point to an external repository on some branch? > > I don't feel confident I understand that concretely -- what precisely > would be "on some branch"? > > Maybe it is ok to point to an external repository in an email to > emacs-devel. I'd want to have a discussion of that, but I tend to > think that if done properly it is basically equivalent to emailing the > patches themselves to emacs-devel. That's a different proposal altogether, AFAIU. From my POV, it makes the lives of those who submit patches easier, but complicates the lives of those who review patches, because pulling those changes into our local repository for testing them is then more complex, and requires access to Git servers about whose security we may not know enough to feel confident. More importantly, given that I did a review of such a remote branch, how do I communicate my comments so that they are recorded for posterity? Probably by email, so that doesn't seem to solve the main problem of avoiding email in the patch submission and review workflow. Btw, for an independent lookout and POV of these and related issues, please see this recent discussion on the GCC mailing list: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-March/000113.html