notmuch-next branch

notmuch-next branch

[Felipe Contreras]

Hi,

I think many people agree notmuch mainline has been rather slow. So
I'm proposing to have notmuch-next branch, either on github or
gitorious (please vote).

More than one person should have write access to this repo, but some
guidelines should be in place. I propose that patches should be
signed-off-by at least another person in the mailing list before
pushing. It would be nice if this is how the mainline branch works,
but we don't need to wait for that to happen. We need to vote on who
are the people to have write access.

Also, we need to agree which patches to start with and how. One
proposal would be to propose and vote here, another would be to resend
them and wait for signed-off-by's.

What do you think?

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Servilio Afre Puentes]

On 11 October 2010 14:45, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think many people agree notmuch mainline has been rather slow. So
> I'm proposing to have notmuch-next branch, either on github or
> gitorious (please vote).

+1 for gitorious, you can use OpenID and their code is available (for
me a sign of more faith in free software than the Github people).

An alternative would be to have a list of git branches in the wiki,
with description, clone URL, etc.

Servilio

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Kristoffer Ström]

> What do you think?

Good idea. github+

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Jameson Rollins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1194 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:45:47 +0300, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think many people agree notmuch mainline has been rather slow. So
> I'm proposing to have notmuch-next branch, either on github or
> gitorious (please vote).
> 
> More than one person should have write access to this repo, but some
> guidelines should be in place. I propose that patches should be
> signed-off-by at least another person in the mailing list before
> pushing. It would be nice if this is how the mainline branch works,
> but we don't need to wait for that to happen. We need to vote on who
> are the people to have write access.

I think this generally sounds like a fine idea, but I don't see why we
need a single central repo that multiple people need access to.  The
whole point of git is to allow for distributed development without need
for a central repo.

In this case, folks can just merge the patches they're interested in
into a "next" branch in their own personal repos, publish them where
ever they want, and then every body can just keep their "next" branches
synced with each other.  As consensus is reached, the next release will
emerge.

jamie.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Servilio Afre Puentes]

On 11 October 2010 15:01, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:45:47 +0300, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think many people agree notmuch mainline has been rather slow. So
>> I'm proposing to have notmuch-next branch, either on github or
>> gitorious (please vote).
>>
>> More than one person should have write access to this repo, but some
>> guidelines should be in place. I propose that patches should be
>> signed-off-by at least another person in the mailing list before
>> pushing. It would be nice if this is how the mainline branch works,
>> but we don't need to wait for that to happen. We need to vote on who
>> are the people to have write access.
>
> I think this generally sounds like a fine idea, but I don't see why we
> need a single central repo that multiple people need access to.  The
> whole point of git is to allow for distributed development without need
> for a central repo.
>
> In this case, folks can just merge the patches they're interested in
> into a "next" branch in their own personal repos, publish them where
> ever they want, and then every body can just keep their "next" branches
> synced with each other.  As consensus is reached, the next release will
> emerge.

+1 and maintaining a list of these repos in the wiki ;)

Servilio

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Amit Kucheria]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jameson Rollins
<jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:45:47 +0300, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think many people agree notmuch mainline has been rather slow. So
>> I'm proposing to have notmuch-next branch, either on github or
>> gitorious (please vote).
>>
>> More than one person should have write access to this repo, but some
>> guidelines should be in place. I propose that patches should be
>> signed-off-by at least another person in the mailing list before
>> pushing. It would be nice if this is how the mainline branch works,
>> but we don't need to wait for that to happen. We need to vote on who
>> are the people to have write access.
>
> I think this generally sounds like a fine idea, but I don't see why we
> need a single central repo that multiple people need access to.  The
> whole point of git is to allow for distributed development without need
> for a central repo.

While distributed development is good, it would be nice for users to
be able to clone one git repo instead of tracking 5 different trees.
And more users typically means more robust software.

It would also make it easier to merge patches back into notmuch-master
if it ever takes off again.

> In this case, folks can just merge the patches they're interested in
> into a "next" branch in their own personal repos, publish them where
> ever they want, and then every body can just keep their "next" branches
> synced with each other.  As consensus is reached, the next release will
> emerge.

Everyone can still maintain their own trees. Patches can go into the
'-next' repo only after being ack'ed by 1-2 active developers on the
mailing list. Meanwhile they bake in personal trees.

/Amit

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Jameson Rollins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 538 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:40:52 +0300, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@verdurent.com> wrote:
> While distributed development is good, it would be nice for users to
> be able to clone one git repo instead of tracking 5 different trees.
> And more users typically means more robust software.

As long as all the repos are synced, then you only need to track one.
But notmuch already has "official" repos [0], and making another
pseudo-"official" repo will probably just makes things more confusing.

jamie.

[0] git://notmuchmail.org/git/notmuch

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Jed Brown]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 22:00, Jameson Rollins
<jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> As long as all the repos are synced, then you only need to track one.
> But notmuch already has "official" repos [0], and making another
> pseudo-"official" repo will probably just makes things more confusing.

Patches show up in a different order in each person's "personal, but
'synced'" repository.  Then you need a mess of merges to actually get
them synced (if they are published, you can't rebase).

Jed

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Felipe Contreras]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jameson Rollins
<jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:45:47 +0300, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think many people agree notmuch mainline has been rather slow. So
>> I'm proposing to have notmuch-next branch, either on github or
>> gitorious (please vote).
>>
>> More than one person should have write access to this repo, but some
>> guidelines should be in place. I propose that patches should be
>> signed-off-by at least another person in the mailing list before
>> pushing. It would be nice if this is how the mainline branch works,
>> but we don't need to wait for that to happen. We need to vote on who
>> are the people to have write access.
>
> I think this generally sounds like a fine idea, but I don't see why we
> need a single central repo that multiple people need access to.  The
> whole point of git is to allow for distributed development without need
> for a central repo.

And yet, git is hosted in a central repo. Different projects have
different needs, and this one seems to need a place to cook up
patches, having multiple committers there seems like it would work.
Note that this wouldn't be the main repo, it would be preparing stage.

> In this case, folks can just merge the patches they're interested in
> into a "next" branch in their own personal repos, publish them where
> ever they want, and then every body can just keep their "next" branches
> synced with each other.  As consensus is reached, the next release will
> emerge.

That might also work, it would be the first project I see doing that
though. But what I worry is the ordering of the patches; we might have
applied the same patches, but they would appear as totally different
branches to a 3rd party, and of course merging other people's 'next'
branches would create a total mess. There should be one repo that has
the latest and greatest 'next' branch that everybody can rebase into,
like the current 'master'.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Jesse Rosenthal]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:10:24 +0200, Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org> wrote:
> Patches show up in a different order in each person's "personal, but
> 'synced'" repository.  Then you need a mess of merges to actually get
> them synced (if they are published, you can't rebase).

I'd add, by way of voting for something a bit more central, that it
would be very hard to offer support to new users over IRC or the list,
if there wasn't some brancha franca. Any problems they might have could
be traced to some patch in whatever repo they pulled from, and everyone
on the channel would, in order to help, be clamoring to have them pull
from this or that repo.

I don't know how official this has to be -- just an agreed upon branch
that people keep around next to their own personal one. Sebastian used
to have one that served this purpose a while back, I think.

None of this means that people couldn't publish their own -- but that
there was one, run probably by a team, to serve as a point of a
reference.

--Jesse

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Sebastian Spaeth]

On 2010-10-11, Jesse Rosenthal wrote:
> I don't know how official this has to be -- just an agreed upon branch
> that people keep around next to their own personal one. Sebastian used
> to have one that served this purpose a while back, I think.

Well, it wasn't really semi-official or even blessed, I just announced
it loudest :-). Meanwhile, I don't feel like maintaining my own notmuch
anymore. I am still using it though and would love to follow someone's
branch :-).

Sebastian

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 283 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:45:47 +0300, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm proposing to have notmuch-next branch, either on github or
> gitorious (please vote).

I'd be glad to host something on notmuchmail.org too.

I suppose I should just set that up...

-Carl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: notmuch-next branch

[David Bremner]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:19:35 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:45:47 +0300, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm proposing to have notmuch-next branch, either on github or
> > gitorious (please vote).
> 
> I'd be glad to host something on notmuchmail.org too.
> 
> I suppose I should just set that up...
> 

+1 for carl just setting that up :)

d

Re: notmuch-next branch

[Sebastian Spaeth]

> I'd be glad to host something on notmuchmail.org too.
> 
> I suppose I should just set that up...

+1 which would make it easier to find for new users. Who would have
push rights? (not me).

Sebastian