[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab fo

From: Florian Dold
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 13:00:20 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3

Some more detailed arguments for the point I was making:

I really like that with GitLab we have to *possibility* to do code
review, but we shouldn't force it down everybody's throat for GNUnet.

- Florian

On 4/7/19 12:47 PM, Florian Dold wrote:
> On 4/7/19 8:33 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> Contributors should be able to do anything they want in their own namespaces 
>> including committing code that does not compile (e.g. for their gnunet.git 
>> forks).
>> However, in order to get it into the "main" gnunet project codebase, the CI 
>> must pass for the respective pull request and I would argue that 1-2 "main" 
>> devs should sign off on the commit (this allows us to control the CAA issue 
>> a bit).
>> Then, things like 0.11.1 and 0.11.2 will not happen anymore and devs still 
>> have the freedom to commit their current work even if does not compile.
> I'm still not convinced.  Everybody can already use their own branches
> even right now to commit code that doesn't compile.
> Do we even have enough "main devs" to make it feasible to require 1-2
> gatekeeper sign-offs for every commit?  What if somebody is on vacation?
>  What about experimental subsystems like RPS?  Is there anybody else
> than grothoff who would have the domain knowledge to sign off commits on
> RPS for ch3?
> I'm worried that this will lead to a balkanization of the project, where
> everybody just works on their own branch, because some want to make
> integrating changes into master so tedious.  It'll also make more
> sweeping changes and refactoring much harder to pull off.
> Once we grow really big, we can do all this.  Great if we already have
> the infrastructure partially in place.  Then we can even have some core
> repo with a lot of gate keeping.  But for the current situation, that's
> just overkill and does more harm than good IMHO.
> GNUnet should be fun and anarchy, not bureaucracy and gatekeeping.
> - Florian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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