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=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 ABD7020450 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:48:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933989AbcHDQsb (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:48:31 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]:35843 "EHLO mail-it0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933732AbcHDQsa (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:48:30 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x130so540360ite.1 for ; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1XbRo/v7HfklG06w4VAEMyLWlaGQYwm89+F1hvcuyIM=; b=HdvmlYWKFN0xBJcMDa+QI+mSKXHksHD2I3VG7X9qw9lk5EcO4axJSLAHmxnvZXuTj2 FHutqu8YGTb4bqK/O/lFgT6TjHgBbcnmhejb+wT0qgqTiMauH4sFb4YnjHk1uYpgnix/ 9VSeb2BIA3K8LDZdFvxt00tZWJAjtEYhEanDUY8lTIuJW/AhBA/999C737nYFl0uRiXR yqZVrCiHT57Ot1x1ILH55VA0R/rzrFIs0uLyAKm0BHC1DeXTsWDgYj3qClOpDYP+2LB2 86Bn4GI1F2qYqLKHsacM0ed6k2EwdUBwIpU6PKnzpBYe+GNigBy8E9BePauoWbvePFo8 8qKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1XbRo/v7HfklG06w4VAEMyLWlaGQYwm89+F1hvcuyIM=; b=mfIM7P7nqq8ZLfK20EN+6X2ddm2T4+mYZuVXXX2qcJ6WbqTyRHGjm4DUjR2nfLWSBl 1sjf7fN3jKBdkwXIoP7nW3BSs4Pe16q+qs5aNC2f6IrtsTL2teXeuBISOLuXYOo8Qf86 pL2zTAJGp8c1D231e+PZDVStK4kIXeePCaXm+JfWZnA0yjejtXCMwGAZUHN6siFZJsze WYTEVFJ4j//iDbilSBLR2hTIKwOD/ISGePTFoeL9d8MJZoV33AxSnnjOc7QF/sSt1yye R4CsvQKyW3XYuSgjcusP7GbMQ1ueoCB2DTr8hc0ezx9+YtkeWon44jrOUSGK8xugtQST S1nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutcuJATz46orsHuLq3X13DdU7oetuPo4InssExie9kXmLZKfILIAgFEwAeFecBQEMMM2V0TMopoJBajSbr2 X-Received: by 10.36.127.7 with SMTP id r7mr75755567itc.49.1470328938945; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 09:42:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.128.66 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:42:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8ff71aba37be979f05abf88f467ec932aa522bdd.1470051326.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> From: Stefan Beller Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:42:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine , Jeff King , Johannes Sixt , Duy Nguyen , =?UTF-8?Q?Jakub_Nar=C4=99bski?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> If we were to change our workflows drastically, I'd propose to >> go a way[1] similar to notedb in Gerrit, or git-series, > > Gerrit is a huge, non-distributed system. Complex, too. If we change the > patch submission process, we should make things *easier*, not *harder*. So > I think Gerrit is pretty much out of the question. I did not propose to use Gerrit or git-series or git appraise. However whenever I see these projects talking to each other, the talk focuses on a "unified review storage format" pretty often, which would make them compatible with each other. So then I could choose git-series, while you could go with git appraise (although that is written in go, so maybe too fancy already ;) Or there could be another new program written in C that follows the "review format". > > Even requiring every contributor to register with GitHub would be too much > of a limitation, I would wager. > > And when I said I have zero interest in tools that use the "latest and > greatest language", I was hinting at git-series. Rust may be a fine and > wonderful language. Implementing git-series in Rust, however, immediately > limited the potential engagement with developers dramatically. > > Additionally, I would like to point out that defining a way to store > reviews in Git is not necessarily improving the way our code contribution > process works. If you want to record the discussions revolving around the > code, I think public-inbox already does a pretty good job at that. Yeah recording is great, but we want to talk about replying and modifying a series? So if I see a patch flying by on the mailing list, ideally I could attach a "!fixup, signed off by Stefan" thing to that patch. (I said "thing" as I do not necessarily mean email here. > > I guess I have no really good idea yet, either, how to retain the ease of > access of sending mails to the list, yet somehow keep a strong tie with > the original data stored in Git. Does it have to be email? Transmitting text could be solved differently as well. With git push/fetch we can interact with a git remote and pertain the state (commits, ancestor graph) at a full level even including notes that comment on commits. git send-email/format-patch recently learned to include a base commit (xy/format-patch-base), maybe we need a counter part to git send-email that downloads a series from your mailbox, such that a local branch can be transmitted to via "git send-email --base=origin/master --include-notes --name=sb/new-series" and completely reconstructed (i.e. the commit sha1s even match) including notes via: git fetch-email --name=sb/new-series That way would ensure we have a "simple" way to transmit patches back and forth and adding potential fixups. You wrote: > In short, I agree that our patch submission process is a saber tooth tiger > that still reflects pre-Git times. While we use Git's tools, the workflow > really tries to cut out Git as much as possible, in favor of pure mails > with non-corrupted, non-HTML patches in them, a charmingly anachronistic > requirement until you try to use state-of-the-art mail clients to send > them. And there are two ways out: * either we teach git how to deal with emails (completely, i.e. sending+receiving) * or we change the development model (e.g. no emails any more) There is no golden third way IMHO. Thanks, Stefan