* Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? @ 2021-09-04 6:55 Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 7:13 ` tomas 2021-09-04 11:24 ` Po Lu 0 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-04 6:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Emacs-devel Nowadays, the large software projects often conduct the development on the workflow supplied by git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, GitLab, etc.). But it seems that Emacs is still developed directly on git, as described here [1], which makes maintaining GNU Emacs development a lot of extra work. So, why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges? [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Sending-Patches.html. Regards -- Assoc. Prof. Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> Theory and Simulation of Materials Hebei Vocational University of Technology and Engineering No. 473, Quannan West Street, Xindu District, Xingtai, Hebei province ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 6:55 Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-04 7:13 ` tomas 2021-09-04 11:24 ` Po Lu 1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: tomas @ 2021-09-04 7:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongyi Zhao; +Cc: Emacs-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --] On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 02:55:35PM +0800, Hongyi Zhao wrote: > Nowadays, the large software projects often conduct the development on > the workflow supplied by git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, GitLab, > etc.). But it seems that Emacs is still developed directly on git, as > described here [1], which makes maintaining GNU Emacs development a > lot of extra work. > > So, why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges? There is an enormous discussion about this in this very mailing list (starting around endo of August and still ongoing, with well over 300 posts. Are you aware of it? Perhaps there might be some iteresting aspects in there for you. Cheers - t [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 6:55 Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 7:13 ` tomas @ 2021-09-04 11:24 ` Po Lu 2021-09-04 11:34 ` tomas 2021-09-04 12:50 ` Hongyi Zhao 1 sibling, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Po Lu @ 2021-09-04 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongyi Zhao; +Cc: Emacs-devel > Nowadays, the large software projects often conduct the development on > the workflow supplied by git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, GitLab, > etc.). But it seems that Emacs is still developed directly on git, as > described here [1], which makes maintaining GNU Emacs development a > lot of extra work. GitHub, Bitbucket and GitLab require their users to run non-free software, which already disqualifies them for the development of GNU software. There was recently a discussion (perhaps it is still in progress? I don't know) about moving to SourceHut, but I don't think it's gone anywhere. The problem seems to be that the present system exists and works, while nobody has sat down and completed the work required to migrate to a new one. Would you like to volunteer? :D ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 11:24 ` Po Lu @ 2021-09-04 11:34 ` tomas 2021-09-04 11:38 ` Po Lu 2021-09-04 12:50 ` Hongyi Zhao 1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: tomas @ 2021-09-04 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 432 bytes --] On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 07:24:21PM +0800, Po Lu wrote: > > Nowadays, the large software projects often conduct the development on > > the workflow supplied by git forges [...] [...] > There was recently a discussion (perhaps it is still in progress? [...] It is. It seems to converge towards a Gnu hosted instance of Sourcehut. Even Sourcehut's main developer took part in it. So folks, look into the archives :-) Cheers - t [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 11:34 ` tomas @ 2021-09-04 11:38 ` Po Lu 2021-09-04 12:11 ` tomas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Po Lu @ 2021-09-04 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: tomas; +Cc: emacs-devel <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes: > Even Sourcehut's main developer took part in it. So folks, look into > the archives :-) Thanks, but I can't possibly look through every post in the archives. Could you point me to a relevant piece of the discussion? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 11:38 ` Po Lu @ 2021-09-04 12:11 ` tomas 2021-09-04 12:51 ` Po Lu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: tomas @ 2021-09-04 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Po Lu; +Cc: emacs-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --] On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 07:38:24PM +0800, Po Lu wrote: > <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes: > > > Even Sourcehut's main developer took part in it. So folks, look into > > the archives :-) > > Thanks, but I can't possibly look through every post in the archives. > Could you point me to a relevant piece of the discussion? The thread starts about here [1], and it has made children. It is so huge that I'm surprised anyone here has't seen it yet. I don't think it's a good idea nor productive to make even more children :) Cheers [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-08/threads.html#01134 - t [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 12:11 ` tomas @ 2021-09-04 12:51 ` Po Lu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Po Lu @ 2021-09-04 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: tomas; +Cc: emacs-devel tomas@tuxteam.de writes: > The thread starts about here [1], and it has made children. > It is so huge that I'm surprised anyone here has't seen it > yet. I remember participating in the parent, but I didn't see anything pertaining to SourceHut at the time. Thanks! > I don't think it's a good idea nor productive to make even > more children :) Indeed, thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 11:24 ` Po Lu 2021-09-04 11:34 ` tomas @ 2021-09-04 12:50 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 13:28 ` Po Lu ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-04 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Po Lu; +Cc: Emacs-devel On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 7:24 PM Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Nowadays, the large software projects often conduct the development on > > the workflow supplied by git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, GitLab, > > etc.). But it seems that Emacs is still developed directly on git, as > > described here [1], which makes maintaining GNU Emacs development a > > lot of extra work. > > GitHub, Bitbucket and GitLab require their users to run non-free > software, which already disqualifies them for the development of GNU > software. If so, I don't think there is such a complete free platform in the world, even the SourceHut you mentioned below, which is also operated, at least in part, as a commercial product. OTOH, Linux kernel [1] has already adopted GitHub as its development platform, which is also complete free and a classic example of successful free software. > There was recently a discussion (perhaps it is still in progress? I > don't know) about moving to SourceHut, but I don't think it's gone > anywhere. The problem seems to be that the present system exists and > works, while nobody has sat down and completed the work required to > migrate to a new one. I can't say anything. Almost all Emacs developers and users are excellent programmers/scientists/engineers. But excellent people also have their own beliefs, quirks and their inner bottom line. Sometimes it may not be consistent with the prevailing trend, just like the existence of Emacs itself. > Would you like to volunteer? :D Technically speaking, I think there are so many guys in Emacs community have enough ability to do this. [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux Best, Hongyi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 12:50 ` Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-04 13:28 ` Po Lu 2021-09-05 0:56 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 13:47 ` Kévin Le Gouguec 2021-09-04 14:04 ` Ben Mezger 2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Po Lu @ 2021-09-04 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongyi Zhao; +Cc: Emacs-devel Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > If so, I don't think there is such a complete free platform in the > world, even the SourceHut you mentioned below, which is also operated, > at least in part, as a commercial product. OTOH, Linux kernel [1] has > already adopted GitHub as its development platform, which is also > complete free and a classic example of successful free software. When GNU software refers to "free", it is inevitably used to mean "freedom". In this case, it means the ability of a user to use a network service without running proprietary software. Furthermore, there is also the requirement that the flagship program of the GNU project, naturally, must be hosted on a GNU project server, which requires that the software running the service must itself be free software. > I can't say anything. Almost all Emacs developers and users are > excellent programmers/scientists/engineers. But excellent people also > have their own beliefs, quirks and their inner bottom line. Sometimes > it may not be consistent with the prevailing trend, just like the > existence of Emacs itself. But Emacs doesn't exist to be consistent with a prevailing trend. It exists to better the GNU system. > Technically speaking, I think there are so many guys in Emacs > community have enough ability to do this. There undoubtedly are, but none of them have stepped up to do the work. Plus, things are cozy as they stand. > [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux Does that count as full adoption? If so, so does this: https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs Cheers! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 13:28 ` Po Lu @ 2021-09-05 0:56 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-05 3:16 ` Po Lu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-05 0:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Po Lu; +Cc: Emacs-devel On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 9:29 PM Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote: > [...] > But Emacs doesn't exist to be consistent with a prevailing trend. It > exists to better the GNU system. It's only ever been a minuscule minority of the population who work at the leading edge of human advance. Best, Hongyi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-05 0:56 ` Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-05 3:16 ` Po Lu 2021-09-05 4:29 ` Hongyi Zhao 0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Po Lu @ 2021-09-05 3:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongyi Zhao; +Cc: Emacs-devel Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > It's only ever been a minuscule minority of the population who > work at the leading edge of human advance. I'm not sure I understand what you're alluding to here. Would you please explain further? Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-05 3:16 ` Po Lu @ 2021-09-05 4:29 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-05 7:34 ` Po Lu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-05 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Po Lu; +Cc: Emacs-devel On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 11:16 AM Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > > > It's only ever been a minuscule minority of the population who > > work at the leading edge of human advance. > > I'm not sure I understand what you're alluding to here. Would you > please explain further? Thanks. Emacs may be the most ancient and powerful tool used by core/kernel level developers in the world, who are only a small percentage of developers. However, it is based on the results of these developments that there are all kinds of unprecedented developments in the field of Internet and supercomputer. Best, Hongyi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-05 4:29 ` Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-05 7:34 ` Po Lu 2021-09-05 8:02 ` Hongyi Zhao 0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Po Lu @ 2021-09-05 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongyi Zhao; +Cc: Emacs-devel Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > Emacs may be the most ancient and powerful tool used by core/kernel > level developers in the world, who are only a small percentage of > developers. However, it is based on the results of these developments > that there are all kinds of unprecedented developments in the field of > Internet and supercomputer. I don't understand how, if this is true at all, this pertains to the development system used by GNU Emacs? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-05 7:34 ` Po Lu @ 2021-09-05 8:02 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-06 1:06 ` Po Lu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-05 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Po Lu; +Cc: Emacs-devel On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 3:34 PM Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > > > Emacs may be the most ancient and powerful tool used by core/kernel > > level developers in the world, who are only a small percentage of > > developers. However, it is based on the results of these developments > > that there are all kinds of unprecedented developments in the field of > > Internet and supercomputer. > > I don't understand how, if this is true at all, this pertains to the > development system used by GNU Emacs? Is Emacs also used to develop itself? I just want to express the following point of view: a few people did some original work that ultimately influenced the course of world development. This is just my own feeling, not necessarily of universal significance Best, Hongyi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-05 8:02 ` Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-06 1:06 ` Po Lu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Po Lu @ 2021-09-06 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongyi Zhao; +Cc: Emacs-devel Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > Is Emacs also used to develop itself? I just want to express the > following point of view: a few people did some original work that > ultimately influenced the course of world development. This is just my > own feeling, not necessarily of universal significance To the best of my knowledge, yes, Emacs is the primary tool for Emacs development. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 12:50 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 13:28 ` Po Lu @ 2021-09-04 13:47 ` Kévin Le Gouguec 2021-09-04 13:58 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-07 15:09 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-04 14:04 ` Ben Mezger 2 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Kévin Le Gouguec @ 2021-09-04 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongyi Zhao; +Cc: Po Lu, Emacs-devel Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > OTOH, Linux kernel [1] has > already adopted GitHub as its development platform, which is also > complete free and a classic example of successful free software. > > [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux FTR: this is a read-only mirror. As the helpful bot that answers every pull request there says: > Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel! > Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on > GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used > for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of > Linux, please email it to us as a patch. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 13:47 ` Kévin Le Gouguec @ 2021-09-04 13:58 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 23:25 ` Philip Kaludercic 2021-09-07 15:09 ` Max Nikulin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-04 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kévin Le Gouguec; +Cc: Po Lu, Emacs-devel On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 9:47 PM Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > > > OTOH, Linux kernel [1] has > > already adopted GitHub as its development platform, which is also > > complete free and a classic example of successful free software. > > > > [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux > > FTR: this is a read-only mirror. As the helpful bot that answers every > pull request there says: > > > Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel! > > > Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on > > GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used > > for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of > > Linux, please email it to us as a patch. Thank you for pointing this out. But the KernelPRBot [1] also admits the following: Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process. [1] https://github.com/KernelPRBot Best, Hongyi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 13:58 ` Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-04 23:25 ` Philip Kaludercic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Philip Kaludercic @ 2021-09-04 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongyi Zhao; +Cc: Po Lu, Emacs-devel, Kévin Le Gouguec Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but > fortunately it is a well documented process. It depends, I have certainly had times where sending a patch was easier than preparing a pull request. One thing that was mentioned in the other thread is that people are not used to patches on mailing lists. Sourcehut and specifically git-send-email.io came up with the clever idea of providing a testing list that nobody reads, just to see how their messages will end up looking like. As long as you don't have to worry that any small small mistake will have an army of greybeards shouting at you for messing up, I think people are more accepting of a different workflow (or that is at least my experience). -- Philip Kaludercic ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 13:47 ` Kévin Le Gouguec 2021-09-04 13:58 ` Hongyi Zhao @ 2021-09-07 15:09 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-08 2:02 ` Po Lu 1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Max Nikulin @ 2021-09-07 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel On 04/09/2021 20:47, Kévin Le Gouguec wrote: > Hongyi Zhao writes: > >> OTOH, Linux kernel [1] has >> already adopted GitHub as its development platform, which is also >> complete free and a classic example of successful free software. >> >> [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux > > FTR: this is a read-only mirror. As the helpful bot that answers every > pull request there says: > >> Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on >> GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used >> for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of >> Linux, please email it to us as a patch. There is a technical reason why github is not suitable for Linux kernel (and it is hardly to applicable to Emacs): it is impossible to coordinate several groups of developers responsible for different subsystems using github flavor of pull requests and bugs. For email it is simply several Cc addresses: Daniel Vetter. Why Github can't host the Linux Kernel Community. August 8, 2017 https://blog.ffwll.ch/2017/08/github-why-cant-host-the-kernel.html Though such reasons were not discussed in Microsoft's proposal to use "modern" approach for Linux development: Relying on plain-text email is a 'barrier to entry' for kernel development, says Linux Foundation board member. Interview with Sarah Novotny. 2020-08-25 https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/25/linux_kernel_email/ These links are intended just to show that various project may have quite different reasons to resist development on github/gitlab despite some demand. I hope, it will not cause Microsoft & Linux flame here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-07 15:09 ` Max Nikulin @ 2021-09-08 2:02 ` Po Lu 2021-09-08 17:34 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-08 17:38 ` Dmitry Gutov 0 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Po Lu @ 2021-09-08 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Max Nikulin; +Cc: emacs-devel Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes: > There is a technical reason why github is not suitable for Linux > kernel (and it is hardly to applicable to Emacs): it is impossible to > coordinate several groups of developers responsible for different > subsystems using github flavor of pull requests and bugs. For email it > is simply several Cc addresses: Why do you believe that is not applicable to Emacs? Similar to the Linux kernel, Emacs is a large project with many subsystems that stretch across a great amount of expertise domains. Unlike the Linux kernel, however, the time spent by these experts working on Emacs is much less than the time spent by experts working on the Linux kernel, which, IMO, simply makes Emacs less suited to such a work-flow. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-08 2:02 ` Po Lu @ 2021-09-08 17:34 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-08 22:49 ` Tim Cross 2021-09-10 3:39 ` Richard Stallman 2021-09-08 17:38 ` Dmitry Gutov 1 sibling, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Max Nikulin @ 2021-09-08 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel On 08/09/2021 09:02, Po Lu wrote: > Max Nikulin writes: > >> There is a technical reason why github is not suitable for Linux >> kernel (and it is hardly to applicable to Emacs): it is impossible to >> coordinate several groups of developers responsible for different >> subsystems using github flavor of pull requests and bugs. For email it >> is simply several Cc addresses: > > Why do you believe that is not applicable to Emacs? Similar to the > Linux kernel, Emacs is a large project with many subsystems that stretch > across a great amount of expertise domains. Sorry, I forgot that Emacs is a kind of OS, so it requires equal treatment. More seriously, it is no more than my impression, so I admit, it may be wrong. Let's leave aside web UI vs. email aspect and concentrate on joining groups and moving discussion or bug to another group feature. Judging from git log --since 2020-09-01 --pretty="format:%an" \ | sort | uniq -c | sort -n number of really active authors (and committers, %cn) is not so high (25 developers with more than 20 commits). Development of kernel is much more active and splitting into groups is mission critical otherwise noise for each person would be too high. Does Emacs have many mail lists dedicated to *development* of subsystems (in other words, are there several apparent groups working on the same repository)? Traffic in emacs-devel is high enough (roughly 1500 messages per month) however I am unsure that it is possible to split into several mail lists with more narrow subjects. I do not say that discussion never moves from one group to another. E.g. recently cause of Org mode related problem was traced down to native compilation bug. Tight collaboration of two groups was not necessary however. Ability to just add "Cc" is convenient but while such events are not frequent above, cost of separate tracking and discussions is acceptable. There are no defined criteria when it is better to split development into relatively independent groups. Till such groups appear the feature of coordination is not really important. (Features necessary for Emacs developers are highlighted in sibling threads.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-08 17:34 ` Max Nikulin @ 2021-09-08 22:49 ` Tim Cross 2021-09-09 6:12 ` Eli Zaretskii 2021-09-10 3:39 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Tim Cross @ 2021-09-08 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes: > On 08/09/2021 09:02, Po Lu wrote: >> Max Nikulin writes: >> >>> There is a technical reason why github is not suitable for Linux >>> kernel (and it is hardly to applicable to Emacs): it is impossible to >>> coordinate several groups of developers responsible for different >>> subsystems using github flavor of pull requests and bugs. For email it >>> is simply several Cc addresses: >> Why do you believe that is not applicable to Emacs? Similar to the >> Linux kernel, Emacs is a large project with many subsystems that stretch >> across a great amount of expertise domains. > > Sorry, I forgot that Emacs is a kind of OS, so it requires equal treatment. > > More seriously, it is no more than my impression, so I admit, it may be wrong. > > Let's leave aside web UI vs. email aspect and concentrate on joining groups and > moving discussion or bug to another group feature. > > Judging from > > git log --since 2020-09-01 --pretty="format:%an" \ > | sort | uniq -c | sort -n > > number of really active authors (and committers, %cn) is not so high (25 > developers with more than 20 commits). Development of kernel is much > more active and splitting into groups is mission critical otherwise noise for > each person would be too high. > > Does Emacs have many mail lists dedicated to *development* of subsystems (in > other words, are there several apparent groups working on the same repository)? > Traffic in emacs-devel is high enough (roughly 1500 messages per month) however > I am unsure that it is possible to split into several mail lists with more > narrow subjects. > > I do not say that discussion never moves from one group to another. E.g. > recently cause of Org mode related problem was traced down to native > compilation bug. Tight collaboration of two groups was not necessary however. > Ability to just add "Cc" is convenient but while such events are not frequent > above, cost of separate tracking and discussions is acceptable. > > There are no defined criteria when it is better to split development into > relatively independent groups. Till such groups appear the feature of > coordination is not really important. (Features necessary for Emacs developers > are highlighted in sibling threads.) I think the discussion sort of got off track from where it started. This was all kicked off by an observation that the current workflows may not be sufficiently familiar/clear for new contributors or that they discourage contributions from new contributors rather than with any perceived problem with workflows once a submission has been made. My impression is that the 20+ people who actually do all the work of reviewing and merging contributed patches are quite happy (in the main) with the current workflow. To be proposing a whole new workflow just to facilitate the first step i.e. contributing a patch, seems to be a little too much and feels like it cold run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps the answer is to look at how things can be structured to make it easier for people to submit quality patches (patches with sufficient documentation, test cases, correct formatting etc) while minimising disruption to the rest of the workflow rather than wholesale re-engineering of the total process. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-08 22:49 ` Tim Cross @ 2021-09-09 6:12 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2021-09-09 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tim Cross; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2021 08:49:11 +1000 > > To be proposing a whole new workflow just to facilitate the first step > i.e. contributing a patch, seems to be a little too much and feels like > it cold run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This is something for the active developers to decide. And we have made that decision: we are willing to switch to a platform which makes it easier for occasional contributors to work with us. We are just looking for a platform that will fit our minimal requirements, which is likely to require some changes in even the best of the platforms. So let's not keep arguing about whether this kind of change in supported workflows is justified: we already made the decision, and I see no reason to reverse it, not yet anyway. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-08 17:34 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-08 22:49 ` Tim Cross @ 2021-09-10 3:39 ` Richard Stallman 2021-09-16 17:24 ` Max Nikulin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2021-09-10 3:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Max Nikulin; +Cc: emacs-devel [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > Why do you believe that is not applicable to Emacs? Similar to the > > Linux kernel, Emacs is a large project with many subsystems that stretch > > across a great amount of expertise domains. > Sorry, I forgot that Emacs is a kind of OS, so it requires equal treatment. Emacs is not an operating system, and neither is Linux. Emacs is a text editor with other features. Linus is a kernel. See https://gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html and https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html, plus the history in https://gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-10 3:39 ` Richard Stallman @ 2021-09-16 17:24 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-16 21:03 ` chad 0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: Max Nikulin @ 2021-09-16 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel On 10/09/2021 10:39, Richard Stallman wrote: > > On 09/09/2021 00:34, Max Nikulin wrote: > > > > Why do you believe that is not applicable to Emacs? Similar to the > > > Linux kernel, Emacs is a large project with many subsystems that stretch > > > across a great amount of expertise domains. > > > Sorry, I forgot that Emacs is a kind of OS, so it requires equal treatment. > > Emacs is not an operating system, and neither is Linux. My apologizes. I had a hope the following: > > More seriously, ... was enough to show that I was kidding. > Emacs is a text editor with other features. Actually it is significantly more than just text editor and the joke was in support of "Emacs is a large project with many subsystems that stretch across a great amount of expertise domains." words by Po Lu. People use Emacs as a mail user agent, a PDF viewer, even a window manager, etc. Sometimes it is just convenient, sometimes it is a way to minimize switching of UI context since there are conflicts between Emacs and many other applications in respect to actions in response to key and mouse events. Existing variety of Emacs features (including external packages) should not be disregarded. Maybe my words on Linux kernel and Emacs development workflows were not clear enough. My opinion is the following: - Development of Linux kernel is an interesting case for discussion on web UI vs. mail list workflow. - Linux kernel development is email-based and rather successful, so it can be an argument that Emacs can continue using mail lists to propose and to discuss changes. - The reason why current web UIs are not sufficient for Linux kernel is not applicable for Emacs. There are a lot of independent groups involved into kernel development while Emacs does not have such fragmentation so flexibility in respect to groups is unnecessary. Scales of projects are rather different (large and huge). - Web UIs have features such as dashboard with status of submitted patches, so it is nice that Eli clearly expressed that developers do not mind change (hopefully mostly by adding new features) of workflow. - I had no aim to tell that GitHub/GitLab workflow is better for Emacs. Certainly comfortable way for main developers is more important. My point was that the case of Linux kernel is not a blocker for Emacs and nothing more. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-16 17:24 ` Max Nikulin @ 2021-09-16 21:03 ` chad 2021-09-19 17:01 ` Max Nikulin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread From: chad @ 2021-09-16 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Max Nikulin; +Cc: EMACS development team [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 761 bytes --] This is a small thing, but: On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:25 AM Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> wrote: > My opinion is the following: > [...] > - The reason why current web UIs are not sufficient for Linux kernel > is not applicable for Emacs. There are a lot of independent groups > involved into kernel development while Emacs does not have such > fragmentation so flexibility in respect to groups is unnecessary. > I suspect that people who think this have never tried to follow, for example, gnus, CEDET, or org development as part(s) of GNU emacs. These are more common in the Linux kernel, but the core motivations exist in both projects, and it would be great to have improvements even if they aren't adopted by both. Hope that helps, ~Chad [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1156 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-16 21:03 ` chad @ 2021-09-19 17:01 ` Max Nikulin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Max Nikulin @ 2021-09-19 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel On 17/09/2021 04:03, chad wrote: > This is a small thing, but: > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:25 AM Max Nikulin wrote: > > My opinion is the following: > [...] > - The reason why current web UIs are not sufficient for Linux kernel > is not applicable for Emacs. There are a lot of independent groups > involved into kernel development while Emacs does not have such > fragmentation so flexibility in respect to groups is unnecessary. > > I suspect that people who think this have never tried to follow, for > example, gnus, CEDET, or org development as part(s) of GNU emacs. These > are more common in the Linux kernel, but the core motivations exist in > both projects, and it would be great to have improvements even if they > aren't adopted by both. Is it frequent enough case that some feature requires synchronous changes in Emacs core and Org (similar to changes in drivers and subsystems of Linux kernel)? If not, projects may be considered rather independent. Some linux drivers are independent to some degree as well, however changes in some kernel subsystem may require support of several versions of driver with different ranges of compatible kernel versions. Sometimes fixes in Org are necessary in response to changes in Emacs to avoid compiler warnings. On the other hand Org still declares compatibility with Emacs-24.3 that, in my opinion, means quire loose coupling. If tight collaboration is required only in rare cases, cost of tracking of bug/feature in an "external" project is not significant. It is not unusual when developers from one project to interact with developers of e.g. completely independent library. Some tools may be handy though, e.g. bugs.launchpad.net subscribes to external bug trackers to show discussion as comments to "local" issue. I have an example of change in Emacs that can make Org better. Several hundred of markers severely slows down regexp searches in the buffer (at least in Emacs-26.3). Org may cache e.g. heading positions using markers. Improving handling of markers in Emacs will make Org more responsive. No action on the Org side is required though (besides a bug report). It just will work faster with new Emacs versions than with older ones. I believe, it is great that each project (Emacs, Org mode) can have own pace of development making requirements for development tools not so strict. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-08 2:02 ` Po Lu 2021-09-08 17:34 ` Max Nikulin @ 2021-09-08 17:38 ` Dmitry Gutov 1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Gutov @ 2021-09-08 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Po Lu, Max Nikulin; +Cc: emacs-devel On 08.09.2021 05:02, Po Lu wrote: > Why do you believe that is not applicable to Emacs? Similar to the > Linux kernel, Emacs is a large project with many subsystems that stretch > across a great amount of expertise domains. Checkout the description of Linux's current workflow in this article: https://blog.ffwll.ch/2017/08/github-why-cant-host-the-kernel.html It describes their practices, with many teams, corresponding repositories and complex interflow of patches. Emacs development is nowhere near that scale. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? 2021-09-04 12:50 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 13:28 ` Po Lu 2021-09-04 13:47 ` Kévin Le Gouguec @ 2021-09-04 14:04 ` Ben Mezger 2 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread From: Ben Mezger @ 2021-09-04 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hongyi Zhao; +Cc: Po Lu, emacs-devel I don't think a follow-up in this thread is necessary, as there is a huge thread already in place concerning this discussion, but: > OTOH, Linux kernel [1] has already adopted GitHub as its development > platform, which is also complete free and a classic example of > successful free software. Not really, no. The Linux's Github repo is only a mirror of the repository, however, no PR, discussion happen there, and those that do happen, are ignored. Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 7:24 PM Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > Nowadays, the large software projects often conduct the development on >> > the workflow supplied by git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, GitLab, >> > etc.). But it seems that Emacs is still developed directly on git, as >> > described here [1], which makes maintaining GNU Emacs development a >> > lot of extra work. >> >> GitHub, Bitbucket and GitLab require their users to run non-free >> software, which already disqualifies them for the development of GNU >> software. > > If so, I don't think there is such a complete free platform in the > world, even the SourceHut you mentioned below, which is also operated, > at least in part, as a commercial product. OTOH, Linux kernel [1] has > already adopted GitHub as its development platform, which is also > complete free and a classic example of successful free software. > >> There was recently a discussion (perhaps it is still in progress? I >> don't know) about moving to SourceHut, but I don't think it's gone >> anywhere. The problem seems to be that the present system exists and >> works, while nobody has sat down and completed the work required to >> migrate to a new one. > > I can't say anything. Almost all Emacs developers and users are > excellent programmers/scientists/engineers. But excellent people also > have their own beliefs, quirks and their inner bottom line. Sometimes > it may not be consistent with the prevailing trend, just like the > existence of Emacs itself. > >> Would you like to volunteer? :D > > Technically speaking, I think there are so many guys in Emacs > community have enough ability to do this. > > [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux > > Best, Hongyi -- Kind regards, Met een vriendelijke groet, Atenciosamente, Ben Mezger https://seds.nl https://github.com/benmezger ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-09-19 17:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 29+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-09-04 6:55 Why not set Emacs development workflow based on the popular git forges (GitHub, Bitbucket, Gitlab, ect)? Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 7:13 ` tomas 2021-09-04 11:24 ` Po Lu 2021-09-04 11:34 ` tomas 2021-09-04 11:38 ` Po Lu 2021-09-04 12:11 ` tomas 2021-09-04 12:51 ` Po Lu 2021-09-04 12:50 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 13:28 ` Po Lu 2021-09-05 0:56 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-05 3:16 ` Po Lu 2021-09-05 4:29 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-05 7:34 ` Po Lu 2021-09-05 8:02 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-06 1:06 ` Po Lu 2021-09-04 13:47 ` Kévin Le Gouguec 2021-09-04 13:58 ` Hongyi Zhao 2021-09-04 23:25 ` Philip Kaludercic 2021-09-07 15:09 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-08 2:02 ` Po Lu 2021-09-08 17:34 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-08 22:49 ` Tim Cross 2021-09-09 6:12 ` Eli Zaretskii 2021-09-10 3:39 ` Richard Stallman 2021-09-16 17:24 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-16 21:03 ` chad 2021-09-19 17:01 ` Max Nikulin 2021-09-08 17:38 ` Dmitry Gutov 2021-09-04 14:04 ` Ben Mezger
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.