From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Kangas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 13:42:45 -0800 Message-ID: References: <871r26w27h.fsf@thornhill.no> <87lf0dq08j.fsf@thornhill.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="21297"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: Theodor Thornhill , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 21 22:45:25 2021 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 1mzmwl-0005Kd-VY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 22:45:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51730 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mzmwk-0004Yk-Pk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 16:45:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57742) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mzmuU-0001Qs-HU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 16:43:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a] (port=37482 helo=mail-pf1-x42a.google.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mzmuF-0002Zf-17 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 16:42:48 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id 8so452443pfo.4 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 13:42:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8FCrAbzfRMexIeDNKexe0eGPgDiRak7YpmDggq5CdHE=; b=Tm4ctXT6vE//4mbqrK86GQXaFDiS7UJoIsw3YKM43YN8DUJTtdjogjbdrksIr6uoxT SOrMg3svBhddFFr7F1I8/RJXMAJsQW6L1ZhXp6laoR6xFrnJr6e30FtZNt9/415mmVw4 ClkqgSiUOJ4iqzNFQr2UI1sr9Cab3QzMYbPZSP73sHlg9Uevvcf/I8KWSzNG0Pxjuxd3 B+GJuoqsD+OlgCXdpz7U7qRfwZZ9fmV/u3Udk5mdRj/RlIKGLWXW3dJbF21sbPdlxxKs Vmu0R4V7nuhdIl/PmMJaP+KbKuwNBWiMwCH7N48sEtS5z+nNqAFHxOKs+tMDi1HOcb8V AmqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=8FCrAbzfRMexIeDNKexe0eGPgDiRak7YpmDggq5CdHE=; b=QP6ocBj/H82R2xG/CieIwsp28jngzreg4p0L7+geP8WWG5gCJ7jJHrqN17w68pRp/q +kDZNpSOvRxU73y2OM3l++xqdgE1iCvVE40mgK4Te3KkIuTXUUDRtcm9EhFDdAUUIgKq JM2dZp6NzNRoJgSaO4DheMtf9T4uMu7urVq3HNMSRSBYA8pmAhKK7yITH9gNIlUzYdWd lX7FuicHHg6OKF8KEvOglJFW6DoaBIX75lbYT4qXdYcIucGA1awqa2brLwXf+zFiYAIM dMkCy3bzbc+CJs7CztGBNxtQuteJknR8R2Q4NcYrCj7I7+VB52+TKXkD4CNFjlaLOq/k D+Bw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XY42lgncjRRxrxUojUztCRVIDDH6jVRAjIYKRle1zqOMUu0cs 3JMqTFUyzjjC+JJ39WRYFan6LlAj8sy8P4LBF55UcYel X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwyZX75tvdX3QvF1HX0wczccQbps3wSwmUzZKjQcIym6Hacv5uv/e0bVb2WZlTd7xW/NGiIQ5GpIvNFfe2EYjI= X-Received: by 2002:a63:5d41:: with SMTP id o1mr225796pgm.325.1640122965776; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 13:42:45 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 13:42:45 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87lf0dq08j.fsf@thornhill.no> X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a; envelope-from=stefankangas@gmail.com; helo=mail-pf1-x42a.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -12 X-Spam_score: -1.3 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:282641 Archived-At: Theodor Thornhill writes: > Actually, I think that running Sourcehut as a local instance wouldn't > really be necessary for the evaluation, because it is the same code that > is running on sr.ht. Apart from the fiddly bits with self hosting, the > workflow should be the same. [snip] > Of course. However, I think that getting some sense of what _needs_ to > be supported before even considering sourcehut would be smart. The self > hosting can come later, IMO. I might be wrong, but I suspect that we are much closer than we think. Mainly, it needs someone to drive the work; whatever that might mean. I gave the suggestion for where I would start, but any work in this direction is of course very welcome. My thinking is that it would be good to provide something that people can easily look at and experiment with to convince themselves that this is a good move. Self-hosting makes it easier for people to just jump right into it, and makes it more likely to happen. But if someone could set up an Emacs mirror on sr.ht and allow people to easily experiment there, then I guess that works too. The important thing here is to pick up one of the loose threads and start making concrete progress. > For example, its author suggests that emacs-devel adopts the `git > send-email` workflow rather than using attachments anyway, but I believe > that was a hard no. On August 28, Lars wrote: > Well, we really don't care as long as the patches reach us unscathed. > > In my experience, it's more likely that a patch won't be mangled if it's > in an attachment (which is why CONTRIBUTE says that), but if you have a > setup that allows you to send patches safely otherwise (i.e., you're not > using Gmail :-)), then we don't care. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-08/msg01436.html I don't see this as a "hard no"; it is just something we need to properly look into and understand the implications of. To add to what Lars said, if you support a web based workflow the people using a bad MUA that would mangle your patches could just use the web based workflow instead. Or at least that's my understanding. Personally, I tend to much agree with Lars that we don't (or shouldn't) care too much if we are dealing with attached patches or "git send-email" or whatever. The end result will be mostly the same with perhaps some small or trivial differences details such as which exact command to run.