pull requests for guile

pull requests for guile

[Matt Wette]

Hi All,

Does the savannah git repo support `git-request-pull'?   And if so,
would that make getting patches in more efficient?   It seems the guile
project needs a way to get simple fixed, at least, merged in.  Would
this help?

Matt

Re: pull requests for guile

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1240 bytes --]

Matt Wette <matt.wette@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does the savannah git repo support `git-request-pull'?

To the best of my knowledge, no any server-side support is required for that.

Git is intentionally designed to avoid any reliance on servers as much as possible.

> And if so, would that make getting patches in more efficient?

I would like to double that question with no any particular connection to Guile.

I fully understand why many developers generally refuse to review freeform pull requests and ask to send patches via their favourite integrated platform (such as gitlab or github) — anyone can evaluate extra features they provide.

Yet, I fail to get why so many teams insist that patches must be submitted as per git-format-patch.

Evidently, this is because they habitually rely on some tooling, that expects patchsets in that format.  But what is that tooling?

The only thing the I am aware of is git-am, which provides... nothing (?) over a simple pull request.

There must be some bits of hidden knowledge, passed from generation to generation of maintainers of venerable bazaar-style projects. ;-)

So, I would be glad if Guile / Guix / etc patch-reviewers shared some details about their workflow.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 247 bytes --]

Re: pull requests for guile

[Josselin Poiret]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1044 bytes --]

Hey Dmitry and Matt,

First off, `git-request-pull` requires the user to have their own
repository hosted somewhere, and someone would need to clone it/add a
remote and fetch from it just to check out what's inside.  That means
extra steps with no real benefits.

Dmitry Alexandrov <dag@gnui.org> writes:

> The only thing the I am aware of is git-am, which provides... nothing (?) over a simple pull request.

Reciprocally, I don't think a simple pull request provides much over
git-am, except that with `format-patch`, everything is simply text, that
once sent over email (in a decentralized fashion) can be simply
responded to and read without relying on complicated javascript in a
browser, and using your mail reader of choice.  Applying a patchset is
pretty easy with tools like b4, lei and friends.

Also, patches lend themselves much better to an iteration workflow, I
know that at least GitHub doesn't like when people rewrite PR history,
which is imo the only solution to get a clean git history in the end.

Best,
--
Josselin Poiret

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 682 bytes --]

Re: pull requests for guile

[Arsen Arsenović]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

Hi Matt,

Matt Wette <matt.wette@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi All,
>
> Does the savannah git repo support `git-request-pull'?   And if so,
> would that make getting patches in more efficient?   It seems the guile
> project needs a way to get simple fixed, at least, merged in.  Would
> this help?

git request-pull merely formats an email from a template, with some
convenience checks, for maintainers to fetch from.  I have a feeling
that you're conflating it with a GitHub "feature".

Savannah needs no special support enabled for maintainers and
contributors to be able to use Gits own request-pulls.

Have a lovely day.
-- 
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]

Re: pull requests for guile

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1433 bytes --]


Josselin Poiret <dev@jpoiret.xyz> writes:

> Reciprocally, I don't think a simple pull request provides much over
> git-am, except that with `format-patch`, everything is simply text, that
> once sent over email (in a decentralized fashion) can be simply
> responded to and read without relying on complicated javascript in a
> browser, and using your mail reader of choice.

I think that this is the biggest advantage of patches by email:
discussing patches via email is more accessible for people with an
existing setup.

Reworking patches iteratively is harder (no simple folding and unfolding
of applied requests, no automatic current diff, no short list of commit
summaries), and accepting patches without changes is harder without
extra setup (no single click on a button), getting an accessible list of
existing submissions takes more knowledge, but the discussion itself is
easier.

With thunderbird such a review would have been somewhat OK, maybe a bit
annoying, but since I switched to reading email with Emacs, reading
patches by email is at least as easy as with a pull-request — and it’s a
system that works on any platform. And I don’t even have much tooling
for that. If I merged many patches, I’d write a small convenience
function to apply the selected region as patch to Guile.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]