[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFE] Migration to gitlab

From: Konstantin Kharlamov
Subject: Re: [RFE] Migration to gitlab
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:59:41 +0300

В Вт, мар 19, 2019 at 9:15 ПП (PM), Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> написал:
 Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
 From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:13:53 +0200

 the Savannah UI is mostly unused by everybody.

Savannah UI and Savannah are not identical, far from that.

Of course not. Not every potential contributor anyway. Further, if I'm reviewing a random patch, *I* don't know if the contribution satisfies the CA requirements. If an automatic checking process were available, I
 could just respond with "Thanks!" and merge.

Such automated checking is n ot easy to set up, because the copyright
assignment database includes some details that are private and cannot
be exposed to public interfaces.  So someone will have to come up with
a service that publishes only the public parts of that, and even then
there will be some rare cases where a manual check will be needed.

 >> At least some of these checks could be automated on a CI.
> They can also be automated by Git commit hooks. It's just a matter of
 > someone doing the job.

 Hooks can help, but if Emacs doesn't even allow one to *commit* a
 change, it might discourage that person from continuing, or
 investigating the failed requirement. We can add too many checks to
 commit hooks.

It is all too easy to disable/bypass the hooks, as you probably know
very well.  So this doesn't sound like an important issue to me.

It looks too easy when you already know how it works. An aribtrary newcomer don't.

When a newbie wants to change a code, they don't need to know all contribution details, because they're in hacking stage. They're just getting acknowledged with the code, they exercise their coding and debugging skills. It's the most fragile stage, you don't want to put any artifical obstacles here, because there's already a lot of unknowns, they may just get overwhelmed.

Btw, Emacs already has at least one git hook, and it's so annoying! The hook simply aborts a commit when sees "signed-off-by" message. I'm using autocompletion in zsh with `git commit -sv` as last command, so it's something I do reflexively. And, while I do appreciate the check itself, but having to rewrite a commit message another time isn't nice. You might ask me "c'mon, usually there's very little text". Well, while that's true most of the time, but for non-native english speaker even writing one paragraph may take a bit more effort to do the proof-reading, fixing wrong articles, etc. And it's annoying having to rewrite that again.

My point is: moving these destructive checks to the moment of the actual contribution to upstream (i.e. the gitlab CI that runs for every merge-request) would make more pleasant experience for contributors, whilst not taking anything from maintainers (sure, "fix unit-test failures that your commit caused" is something that a contributor could probably figure out themselves).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]