From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id yDEUFasqvF51ewAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 17:13:15 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id eDGACLoqvF6lVQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 17:13:30 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B61B7940C01 for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 17:13:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:54188 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYuwi-0007VY-MO for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 13 May 2020 13:13:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54134) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYuwZ-0007Tr-W1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 May 2020 13:13:20 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:36781) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYuwY-0003z7-SU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 May 2020 13:13:19 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD195C0109; Wed, 13 May 2020 13:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 13 May 2020 13:13:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=Js2XPoTYeiC6oWnes5ZMZmKx xxEF2wWhe6Yycx/kb/Y=; b=PDvK/GycbZ4ZAw5M6ws0saCgFDwxxsSbTUx+1FHP LTh5OMYlW7Oc8mh6W5XCuQeFDRsUPOH+vE+5eOHf5fONnyXkNlHF8YkTybYoHUwE dGrW4GFAGMeRoS2B55vdKjjlPcaQPGpMDUoMUb281XLy5VgoulBGfU4N3QeIffe7 boI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Js2XPo TYeiC6oWnes5ZMZmKxxxEF2wWhe6Yycx/kb/Y=; b=HndYS3kY8Sc+t/D3/65Iyl zKjfRyURDcuu6VFPLgD+MwM4GpEYyyhYHd9WtUwBhibjLm3nI8qcv0t2zEezL5kc SLEiP/RiNOpOFJtL5XmN+VT+bAv7tbAJS9i6XGH8hNDZKKnk/DgauQmG48HSsQ/k IHz4NDr/Ae1cZQU2LlWd0z6wBF/k3ZobdAQKPCZLo872r8ZkysGViongAtWdCng2 2pXoywDODgU5jZ/M8rodM3gKwkenEHzc0frvP36mvNl/0MJwpjLA+WEoOF/v+SBQ xgMJsJH2R0j3Dr3eIXf6MxjycO0h75WOBfWBjrr+ktgb/AEH3gxNhW5AtOfluv/Q == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrleeggddutdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfh rghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeeukeektdffvddtudegjeegtdevhfeufeeivdejiedtieegtdevjedvjeehffev gfenucfkphepjeeirdduvdegrddufeekrdeifeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (c-76-124-138-63.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [76.124.138.63]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3F93A3280059; Wed, 13 May 2020 13:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 13:13:13 -0400 From: Leo Famulari To: zimoun Subject: Re: best practise between git-fetch vs url-fetch? Message-ID: <20200513171313.GA8773@jasmine.lan> References: <20200306091524.5044.11103@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200306091525.E8A1621163@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87o8t9lfci.fsf@devup.no> <871rq5bjzf.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87lfodl6u5.fsf@devup.no> <87tv2vgdlg.fsf@gnu.org> <87lfo72b8i.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.25; envelope-from=leo@famulari.name; helo=out1-smtp.messagingengine.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/13 13:13:15 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] 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_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Guix Devel Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: 0.99 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=famulari.name header.s=mesmtp header.b=PDvK/Gyc; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm2 header.b=HndYS3kY; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [0.99 / 13.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.53997126454934]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[famulari.name:s=mesmtp,messagingengine.com:s=fm2]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.05), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.54)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[famulari.name:-,messagingengine.com:-]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[leo@famulari.name,guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[famulari.name]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[76.124.138.63:received]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-TUID: VGO5CiYqsS8f On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 03:08:26AM +0200, zimoun wrote: > Based on these 2 messages [1,2], what is the consensus between > git-fetch and url-fetch? Do we need a consensus? Sometimes it's enough for the reviewer to 1) bite their tongue or 2) fix before pushing. Often it's a matter of taste and it is beneficial to not second-guess the patch author too much, to not hurt their confidence. I think we should try to avoid a situation where we have to bootstrap Git. We do have git-minimal, which works for now. Libgit2 recently started releasing tarballs, so that could be an option, too. Another point for url-fetch is that Git's transition from SHA1 to SHA256 identifiers may be easy for us, or it may not be. We don't know yet.