[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?
From: |
Theodor Thornhill |
Subject: |
Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing? |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:00:50 +0100 |
Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:
> Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> writes:
>
>> Actually, I think that running Sourcehut as a local instance wouldn't
>> really be necessary for the evaluation, because it is the same code that
>> is running on sr.ht. Apart from the fiddly bits with self hosting, the
>> workflow should be the same.
> [snip]
>> Of course. However, I think that getting some sense of what _needs_ to
>> be supported before even considering sourcehut would be smart. The self
>> hosting can come later, IMO.
>
> I might be wrong, but I suspect that we are much closer than we think.
>
I don't think you are wrong at all.
> Mainly, it needs someone to drive the work; whatever that might mean.
> I gave the suggestion for where I would start, but any work in this
> direction is of course very welcome.
>
Your suggestions are welcome, and were in line with what I was thinking
as well :)
> My thinking is that it would be good to provide something that people
> can easily look at and experiment with to convince themselves that this
> is a good move. Self-hosting makes it easier for people to just jump
> right into it, and makes it more likely to happen. But if someone could
> set up an Emacs mirror on sr.ht and allow people to easily experiment
> there, then I guess that works too.
>
IMO this will be the easiest option, at least until some of the more
senior emacs contributors/maintainers wants to take over the reigns.
> The important thing here is to pick up one of the loose threads and
> start making concrete progress.
>
I can at least donate the ~emacs user, but not sure if I have time to
maintain a mirror with no delay.
>> For example, its author suggests that emacs-devel adopts the `git
>> send-email` workflow rather than using attachments anyway, but I believe
>> that was a hard no.
>
> On August 28, Lars wrote:
>
>> Well, we really don't care as long as the patches reach us unscathed.
>>
>> In my experience, it's more likely that a patch won't be mangled if it's
>> in an attachment (which is why CONTRIBUTE says that), but if you have a
>> setup that allows you to send patches safely otherwise (i.e., you're not
>> using Gmail :-)), then we don't care.
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-08/msg01436.html
>
> I don't see this as a "hard no"; it is just something we need to
> properly look into and understand the implications of.
>
> To add to what Lars said, if you support a web based workflow the people
> using a bad MUA that would mangle your patches could just use the web
> based workflow instead. Or at least that's my understanding.
>
> Personally, I tend to much agree with Lars that we don't (or shouldn't)
> care too much if we are dealing with attached patches or "git
> send-email" or whatever. The end result will be mostly the same with
> perhaps some small or trivial differences details such as which exact
> command to run.
What I meant was a hard no was to enforce the send-email workflow. It
seems emacs wants to be a little more forgiving, which I agree with.
Theo
- Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?, (continued)
- Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?, Stefan Kangas, 2021/12/21
- Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2021/12/21
- Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?, Sean Whitton, 2021/12/21
- Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?, Theodor Thornhill, 2021/12/21
- Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?, Theodor Thornhill, 2021/12/21
- Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?, Stefan Kangas, 2021/12/21
- Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?,
Theodor Thornhill <=
Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?, Richard Stallman, 2021/12/21
Re: Migrating to sourcehut - what's missing?, Vitaly Ankh, 2021/12/21