From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Theodor Thornhill Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:00:50 +0100 Message-ID: <875yrhpqi5.fsf@thornhill.no> References: <871r26w27h.fsf@thornhill.no> <87lf0dq08j.fsf@thornhill.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22954"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: Stefan Kangas , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 21 23:02:01 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 1mznCq-0005mU-Mw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:02:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42462 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mznCp-0000VP-7v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:01:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60582) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mznBq-00084s-0p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:00:58 -0500 Original-Received: from out1.migadu.com ([91.121.223.63]:63655) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mznBm-0004sk-LR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:00:57 -0500 X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thornhill.no; s=key1; t=1640124052; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/Xg4Pa+L90ddTtQebEO1T8o8ZQWrUH3aMBTA8QkWN9E=; b=AQZKzi7jMj5oAu/t/UCAucamvvX22M4RIMHKuUhlq+lWyX1Fu4r/5IxtkzxVim+oXVBm+g cUPkEu9Yoc3lv/yWzqLYHSy/75bMeXiwRdlSRsioYWPuzMeDvKrlTOlGIFRfv5mBdNb2BD lVNoW1k6cMZwXbeAOHWoDYsOIJOx746QhzT9xB26yS+XM5+AGTAftlVSjTIlotdsg8YVN2 F40bTfLtB6lN3nTUhm2/axOVeLwN89+xIdsDJdK/ZVZWWGp0Sbhknt9vlssAzYya2doSfb vtMySIhEmSnQeun/3ygiJpH354KnUMRh1G8bcTACamUC+vFySGV6EOqefQ+3hg== In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Migadu-Auth-User: thornhill.no Received-SPF: pass client-ip=91.121.223.63; envelope-from=theo@thornhill.no; helo=out1.migadu.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:282646 Archived-At: Stefan Kangas writes: > 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. > I don't think you are wrong at all. > 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. > Your suggestions are welcome, and were in line with what I was thinking as well :) > 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. > IMO this will be the easiest option, at least until some of the more senior emacs contributors/maintainers wants to take over the reigns. > The important thing here is to pick up one of the loose threads and > start making concrete progress. > I can at least donate the ~emacs user, but not sure if I have time to maintain a mirror with no delay. >> 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. What I meant was a hard no was to enforce the send-email workflow. It seems emacs wants to be a little more forgiving, which I agree with. Theo