From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [RFE] Migration to gitlab Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:45:17 +0200 Message-ID: <837ecvux2q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1552789070.5272.1@yandex.ru> <1552791707.5272.2@yandex.ru> <1552793646.5272.3@yandex.ru> <1552821396.21432.0@yandex.ru> <83imwhwf4x.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="940"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: theophilusx@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, hi-angel@yandex.ru To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 19 08:45:35 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h69RH-000067-6Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 08:45:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53096 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h69RG-0002Yz-4s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 03:45:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:35223) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h69RA-0002Yi-6I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 03:45:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49603) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h69R9-0005HT-D9; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 03:45:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3219 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1h69R7-00010n-C3; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 03:45:27 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:52:17 +0200) 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: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:234358 Archived-At: > Cc: theophilusx@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:52:17 +0200 > > On 17.03.2019 20:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> savannah.gnu.org looks like a news site > > > > Are you sure you are looking at the right page? You should be looking > > here: > > > > https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/emacs > > I can't help but feel that the mentions of Savannah in this thread are > disingenuous. I suggest you to look up the meaning of "disingenuous" before you use it. I don't think you really meant that. In any case, you misunderstood my comment: it was in response to a claim that Savannah looks like a news site, that's all. > So since Savannah's role is very minor See Glenn's response: that Savannah's job is largely behind the scenes and under the hood doesn't mean its role is minor. Quite the contrary. > >> I've just read a bit about that. I might be missing some nuances of the > >> process, but right now I don't see how using merge requests vs emails > >> could interfere. > > > > It doesn't interfere, but it slows down the process for new > > contributors, so doing this stuff quickly is no longer an attainable > > goal. > > Wouldn't the said contributors still be able to submit patches over > email anyway? Again, this is orthogonal to what I was saying, as it takes my comments out of their context. The issue discussed was the alleged speed-up of patch contribution process. > On the other hand, the CI could check all the included commits in a PR > for their authors and the copyright assignments of each. And GitLab > would show that this particular check failed, which could be more > accessible for a contributor than reading up on patch submission > conditions in the documentation. Surely, each contributor already knows whether they do or don't have assignment on file? > > . code submissions should include documentation > > . commit log messages should be formatted in a certain way > > . bug numbers should be referenced in log messages > > . US English conventions in writing comments and documentation > > (spelling, two spaces between sentences, etc.) > > . we require copyright assignments for accepting changesets larger > > than about 15 original source lines > > . we have peculiar rules regarding the branch were certain changes > > should be pushed (affects the branch against which contributors > > should prepare patches) > > . very elaborate coding and documenting conventions (their > > description takes around 900 lines in the ELisp manual) > > At least some of these checks could be automated on a CI. They can also be automated by Git commit hooks. It's just a matter of someone doing the job. And I didn't say I was against adding CI to Emacs, that wasn't at all the intent of my comments. I just wanted to make the issue more complete and balanced, because it isn't as clear-cut as the OP seemed to indicate in the original message.