From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043591F855 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 21:20:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751183AbcHAVUI (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2016 17:20:08 -0400 Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net ([64.71.152.64]:47990 "EHLO dcvr.yhbt.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751272AbcHAVUG (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2016 17:20:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969681F855; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 21:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 21:19:38 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Josh Triplett Cc: Christian Couder , Richard Ipsum , git@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dborowitz@google.com, Omar Jarjur , Harry Lawrence Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-series: track changes to a patch series over time Message-ID: <20160801211938.GA16348@dcvr> References: <20160729064055.GB25331@x> <20160729101011.GA3469@salo> <20160801075554.GA22222@starla> <20160801085928.lw3ltdksyrjujutu@x> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160801085928.lw3ltdksyrjujutu@x> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 07:55:54AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > Christian Couder wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Richard Ipsum > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:40:55PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> > > > >> I'd welcome any feedback, whether on the interface and workflow, the > > > >> internals and collaboration, ideas on presenting diffs of patch series, > > > >> or anything else. > > > > > > I'm particularly interested in trying to establish a standard for > > > > storing review data in git. I've got a prototype for doing that[3], > > > > and an example tool that uses it[4]. The tool is still incomplete/buggy though. > > I'm not convinced another format/standard is needed besides the > > email workflow we already use for git and kernel development. > > Not all projects use a patches-by-email workflow, or want to. To the > extent that tools and projects use some other workflow, standardizing > the format they use to store patch reviews (including per-line > annotations, approvals, test results, etc) seems preferable to having > each tool use its own custom format. I think standardizing on email conventions (such as what we already do with format-patch, request-pull, S-o-b trailers) would be a step in this direction and a good step to take. But yeah, I also hope git adopters can somehow be convinced to also adopt the workflow that built git itself. > > I also see the reliance on an after-the-fact search engine > > (which can be tuned/replaced) as philosophically inline with > > what git does, too, such as not having rename tracking and > > doing delayed deltafication. > > Storing review data in git doesn't mean it needs to end up in the > history of the project itself; it can use after-the-fact annotations on > a commit. Right. So on public-inbox.org/git today, one could search for after-the-fact annotations based on commit titles and maybe exact commit ID matches. A future goal might be to get search indexing working on commit ID substrings. So finding references to commit deadbeefcafe01234567890123467890abcdef00 could be done by searching for "commit deadbeefcafe" or even a shorter ID, and the following results could still be returned: 1. commit deadbeefcafe broke my cat feeder 2. commit deadbeef killed my cow > > Email also has the advantage of having existing tooling, and > > being (at least for now) federated without a single point of > > failure. > > Storing review data in git makes it easy to push and pull it, which can > provide the basis for a federated system. Every public-inbox exposed over HTTP(S) is git clonable[1], so it's possible to push/pull or have developers merge/combine inboxes with index-only operations. There's no UI for that, yet, and having a working tree checked out is inefficient with 300K uncompressed mails... But there needs to be way to message others about the existence of new pushes/pull-requests/reviews/etc; including users unable to clone or host 800M git repos; so that messaging system might as well be email. [1] git clone --mirror https://public-inbox.org/git/ That's not efficient, yet, though, at around 800M when the gzipped fast-export dump is around half that: https://public-inbox.org/git/20160710034745.GA20270@dcvr.yhbt.net/T/#u