[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU GRUB maintenance
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
Re: GNU GRUB maintenance
Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:14:39 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.2.0
On 08.10.2015 21:34, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On October 8, 2015 10:52:25 AM EDT, Andrei Borzenkov <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hello, all. I'm sorry for not being available to do enough
>>> for GRUB in last time but I was overbooked. Yet there is a good news.
>>> Google there is a 20% project and GRUB has been approved as 20%
>>> for me. The goal is to have 2.02 released before the end of this
>>> Other than the raw lack of time there is another issue which makes
>>> maintenance difficult: inefficient VCS.
>> VCS is actually OK. The project of size Linux kernel seems to work
>> well using pull request e-mails. The disadvantages are
>> - contributors must have repository available via Internet
> That is quite easy nowadays. And you can always ask for signed tags if you
> are worried about repos being subverted.
>> - contributors are trusted to actually submit pull request for branch
>> that was reviewed
> It is a disadvantage to trust people!?
>> - it needs to be done locally and pushed
> Or you can have different maintainers pushing the patches in if they are
> Acked or Reviewed.
> Meaning the committee does not have to be the same person who reviews/acks it.
>>> It requires me
>> or someone with
>>> privileges manually copy the patch. What other systems would be ok?
>>> obviously has to be a free software and hosted on free
>>> hosting. It also has to have an efficient 1-click merge (so that
>>> with privileges can get any patch submitted to the system merged in
>>> couple of clicks).
> Clicks? That sounds like a GUI thing. And it sounds like you need to have an
> admin to set it up, patch it occasionally, deal with spammers, etc.
> What is wrong with the old mechanism of emails.
It takes too much effort to:
a) Track if there are any unresolved issues
b) It takes non-trivial amount of effort to commit once it's reviewed:
you need to copy patch from mail client to git, do commit, copy
description and so on
c) No integration with continous testing systems
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GNU GRUB maintenance, Andrei Borzenkov, 2015/10/09
Re: GNU GRUB maintenance, Fajar A. Nugraha, 2015/10/09
Re: GNU GRUB maintenance, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, 2015/10/09
Re: GNU GRUB maintenance, Josef Bacik, 2015/10/09