[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: Schanzenbach, Martin
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 13:14:08 +0200

> On 7. Apr 2019, at 12:47, Florian Dold <address@hidden> 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?

As I said in another mail you are fighting windmills here. Given that we have a 
mandatory CAA, that is where the gatekeepers come in anyway.
And the problems you claim here are also exiting there.

And regarding domain knowledge: It doesn't matter. Code review is more than 
just functionality. It is QA.

> 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.

We already have and need gatekeeping.
And as you already said above, everybody can already work on their own branch.

> GNUnet should be fun and anarchy, not bureaucracy and gatekeeping.

I really don't want to repeat myself but you really don't see the point.

> - Florian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

reply via email to

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