GNU bug report logs -
#34889
[RFE] Migration to gitlab
Previous Next
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 34889 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 34889 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#34889; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 02:19:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 02:19:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
I want to start by answering first likely question: the Community
Edition of gitlab should be fine license-wise, quoting Richard Stallman
"We have a simple way of looking at these two versions. The free
version is free software, so it is ethical."¹
Terms: "merge request" in gitlab means "patch series sent for review".
----
It makes me sad, seeing Emacs addons popping up, for a functional that
better could've been implemented in core. It's a lot of contributors
out there; at the same time, I see very little patches on emacs-devel
list.
A lot of open-source projects already migrated to gitlab: all
FreeDesktop projects, all Gnome projects; and KDE are likely to migrate
soon too². Gnome reports: "After switching to GitLab, I noticed almost
immediately an increase in contributions from people I hadn’t met
before. I think GitLab really lowered the threshold for people getting
started"³.
So, at the very least, migrating to gitlab should make contributions
easier for bigger part of the open-source world, peoples who used to
github and gitlab. (btw, here's a rarely mentioned point, why in
particular mailing-list workflow is hard for newcomers: almost every
mail client out there breaks formatting by default; and configuring
that out isn't always easy).
Other points include:
1. I know some people like to operate with mails rather than
web-interface (which is what usual gitlab workflow based on). For them
gitlab can be configured to be managed with mails. I don't know how far
it stretches, but at the very least creating/replying to issues/merge
requests can be enabled.⁴
2. Gitlab makes addressing review comments easier. With mailing lists
workflow you either need to α) send a v2 of the patch; which is a
little frustrating: you need to find message-id to feed it to
git-send-email, and then you need to make sure its title lines up with
the rest of the series. Or β) resend whole patch-series; which can be
just redundant when all you did was a one-line change, and clutters the
mailing list. Also, upon sending v3, v4, etc. you need to save
somewhere changes since v1. You can put it in actual commits, but for
git-history this information is unnecessary. With gitlab workflow, on
the other hand, you just force-push changes to the branch that has
merge-request opened. A single command, that it.
3. CI. I've recently seen someone on emacs-devel⁵ asking a
contributor to run their syntax-checking script on a regular basis.
That's becase you can't run any check on a code hanging out there on a
mailing list in pure air. Gitlab supports CI, i.e. one can set it up to
run unit-tests for every merge-request created, so these errors get
caught before getting to the tree; and possibly even before getting to
eyes of reveiwers.
4. Impossible to lose "merge request". I've seen in Emacs docs an
advice to send patch series to a bugtracker, because on emacs-devel
they can easily be forgotten. That can't happen so easily with gitlab,
where you have a tab with open merge requests.
5. Discussion on patch series is easier to read. On mailing lists can
quickly appear a dozen of no longer relevant review mails, that refer
to something that was addressed. In Gitlab the addressed comments can
be marked as such, and get collapsed.
6. More tightly integrated bugtracker. When a commit refers to an
issue, it can be seen from inside the issue. This is useful e.g. when
someone fixed a problem, but for some reason couldn't address review
comments, leaving the code behind. Then later peoples who stumble upon
the same issue can just improve the code instead of doing research and
writing it on their own.
7. Unclear how to download a patch-series from mailing list. Usually
mailing-list driven projects add some system that tracks patches, and
allows to download series. E.g. that's how Mesa worked. But Emacs don't
seem to have one. With gitlab though you can simply fetch someone's
branch.
1:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2015-03/msg00095.html
2:
http://kde.6490.n7.nabble.com/Gitlab-Evaluation-amp-Migration-td1708416.html
3: https://www.gnome.org/news/2018/05/gnome-moves-to-gitlab-2/
4: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/administration/incoming_email.html
5: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2019-03/msg00131.html
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#34889; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 03:20:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
В Вс, мар 17, 2019 at 5:17 ДП (AM), Konstantin Kharlamov
<hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> написал:
> I want to start by answering first likely question: the Community
> Edition of gitlab should be fine license-wise, quoting Richard
> Stallman "We have a simple way of looking at these two versions. The
> free version is free software, so it is ethical."¹
>
> Terms: "merge request" in gitlab means "patch series sent for review".
>
> ----
>
> It makes me sad, seeing Emacs addons popping up, for a functional
> that better could've been implemented in core. It's a lot of
> contributors out there; at the same time, I see very little patches
> on emacs-devel list.
>
> A lot of open-source projects already migrated to gitlab: all
> FreeDesktop projects, all Gnome projects; and KDE are likely to
> migrate soon too². Gnome reports: "After switching to GitLab, I
> noticed almost immediately an increase in contributions from people I
> hadn’t met before. I think GitLab really lowered the threshold for
> people getting started"³.
>
> So, at the very least, migrating to gitlab should make contributions
> easier for bigger part of the open-source world, peoples who used to
> github and gitlab. (btw, here's a rarely mentioned point, why in
> particular mailing-list workflow is hard for newcomers: almost every
> mail client out there breaks formatting by default; and configuring
> that out isn't always easy).
>
> Other points include:
> 1. I know some people like to operate with mails rather than
> web-interface (which is what usual gitlab workflow based on). For
> them gitlab can be configured to be managed with mails. I don't know
> how far it stretches, but at the very least creating/replying to
> issues/merge requests can be enabled.⁴
> 2. Gitlab makes addressing review comments easier. With mailing
> lists workflow you either need to α) send a v2 of the patch; which
> is a little frustrating: you need to find message-id to feed it to
> git-send-email, and then you need to make sure its title lines up
> with the rest of the series. Or β) resend whole patch-series; which
> can be just redundant when all you did was a one-line change, and
> clutters the mailing list. Also, upon sending v3, v4, etc. you need
> to save somewhere changes since v1. You can put it in actual commits,
> but for git-history this information is unnecessary. With gitlab
> workflow, on the other hand, you just force-push changes to the
> branch that has merge-request opened. A single command, that it.
> 3. CI. I've recently seen someone on emacs-devel⁵ asking a
> contributor to run their syntax-checking script on a regular basis.
> That's becase you can't run any check on a code hanging out there on
> a mailing list in pure air. Gitlab supports CI, i.e. one can set it
> up to run unit-tests for every merge-request created, so these errors
> get caught before getting to the tree; and possibly even before
> getting to eyes of reveiwers.
> 4. Impossible to lose "merge request". I've seen in Emacs docs an
> advice to send patch series to a bugtracker, because on emacs-devel
> they can easily be forgotten. That can't happen so easily with
> gitlab, where you have a tab with open merge requests.
> 5. Discussion on patch series is easier to read. On mailing lists
> can quickly appear a dozen of no longer relevant review mails, that
> refer to something that was addressed. In Gitlab the addressed
> comments can be marked as such, and get collapsed.
> 6. More tightly integrated bugtracker. When a commit refers to an
> issue, it can be seen from inside the issue. This is useful e.g. when
> someone fixed a problem, but for some reason couldn't address review
> comments, leaving the code behind. Then later peoples who stumble
> upon the same issue can just improve the code instead of doing
> research and writing it on their own.
> 7. Unclear how to download a patch-series from mailing list. Usually
> mailing-list driven projects add some system that tracks patches, and
> allows to download series. E.g. that's how Mesa worked. But Emacs
> don't seem to have one. With gitlab though you can simply fetch
> someone's branch.
>
> 1:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2015-03/msg00095.html
> 2:
> http://kde.6490.n7.nabble.com/Gitlab-Evaluation-amp-Migration-td1708416.html
> 3: https://www.gnome.org/news/2018/05/gnome-moves-to-gitlab-2/
> 4: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/administration/incoming_email.html
> 5: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2019-03/msg00131.html
Btw, one more point I just got: no more discrepancy between what
mailing list subscribers see, and what web-interface renders. E.g. the
nicely formatted list of points above from the outside worls looks like
a large single line:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2019-03/msg00531.html
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#34889; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 03:35:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 34889 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Oops. Please, reply to this mail, I haven't thought that mails to
bugs-gnu gonna create new reports. Fixed here.
В Вс, мар 17, 2019 at 6:01 ДП (AM), Konstantin Kharlamov
<hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> написал:
>
>
> В Вс, мар 17, 2019 at 5:17 ДП (AM), Konstantin Kharlamov
> <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> написал:
>> I want to start by answering first likely question: the Community
>> Edition of gitlab should be fine license-wise, quoting Richard
>> Stallman "We have a simple way of looking at these two versions.
>> The free version is free software, so it is ethical."¹
>>
>> Terms: "merge request" in gitlab means "patch series sent for
>> review".
>>
>> ----
>>
>> It makes me sad, seeing Emacs addons popping up, for a functional
>> that better could've been implemented in core. It's a lot of
>> contributors out there; at the same time, I see very little patches
>> on emacs-devel list.
>>
>> A lot of open-source projects already migrated to gitlab: all
>> FreeDesktop projects, all Gnome projects; and KDE are likely to
>> migrate soon too². Gnome reports: "After switching to GitLab, I
>> noticed almost immediately an increase in contributions from people
>> I hadn’t met before. I think GitLab really lowered the threshold
>> for people getting started"³.
>>
>> So, at the very least, migrating to gitlab should make contributions
>> easier for bigger part of the open-source world, peoples who used
>> to github and gitlab. (btw, here's a rarely mentioned point, why in
>> particular mailing-list workflow is hard for newcomers: almost
>> every mail client out there breaks formatting by default; and
>> configuring that out isn't always easy).
>>
>> Other points include:
>> 1. I know some people like to operate with mails rather than
>> web-interface (which is what usual gitlab workflow based on). For
>> them gitlab can be configured to be managed with mails. I don't
>> know how far it stretches, but at the very least creating/replying
>> to issues/merge requests can be enabled.⁴
>> 2. Gitlab makes addressing review comments easier. With mailing
>> lists workflow you either need to α) send a v2 of the patch; which
>> is a little frustrating: you need to find message-id to feed it to
>> git-send-email, and then you need to make sure its title lines up
>> with the rest of the series. Or β) resend whole patch-series;
>> which can be just redundant when all you did was a one-line change,
>> and clutters the mailing list. Also, upon sending v3, v4, etc. you
>> need to save somewhere changes since v1. You can put it in actual
>> commits, but for git-history this information is unnecessary. With
>> gitlab workflow, on the other hand, you just force-push changes to
>> the branch that has merge-request opened. A single command, that it.
>> 3. CI. I've recently seen someone on emacs-devel⁵ asking a
>> contributor to run their syntax-checking script on a regular basis.
>> That's becase you can't run any check on a code hanging out there
>> on a mailing list in pure air. Gitlab supports CI, i.e. one can set
>> it up to run unit-tests for every merge-request created, so these
>> errors get caught before getting to the tree; and possibly even
>> before getting to eyes of reveiwers.
>> 4. Impossible to lose "merge request". I've seen in Emacs docs an
>> advice to send patch series to a bugtracker, because on emacs-devel
>> they can easily be forgotten. That can't happen so easily with
>> gitlab, where you have a tab with open merge requests.
>> 5. Discussion on patch series is easier to read. On mailing lists
>> can quickly appear a dozen of no longer relevant review mails, that
>> refer to something that was addressed. In Gitlab the addressed
>> comments can be marked as such, and get collapsed.
>> 6. More tightly integrated bugtracker. When a commit refers to an
>> issue, it can be seen from inside the issue. This is useful e.g.
>> when someone fixed a problem, but for some reason couldn't address
>> review comments, leaving the code behind. Then later peoples who
>> stumble upon the same issue can just improve the code instead of
>> doing research and writing it on their own.
>> 7. Unclear how to download a patch-series from mailing list.
>> Usually mailing-list driven projects add some system that tracks
>> patches, and allows to download series. E.g. that's how Mesa
>> worked. But Emacs don't seem to have one. With gitlab though you
>> can simply fetch someone's branch.
>>
>> 1:
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2015-03/msg00095.html
>> 2:
>> http://kde.6490.n7.nabble.com/Gitlab-Evaluation-amp-Migration-td1708416.html
>> 3: https://www.gnome.org/news/2018/05/gnome-moves-to-gitlab-2/
>> 4: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/administration/incoming_email.html
>> 5:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2019-03/msg00131.html
>
> Btw, one more point I just got: no more discrepancy between what
> mailing list subscribers see, and what web-interface renders. E.g.
> the nicely formatted list of points above from the outside worls
> looks like a large single line:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2019-03/msg00531.html
>
>
>
Added tag(s) notabug.
Request was from
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 03:40:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Reply sent
to
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>:
You have taken responsibility.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 03:40:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 03:40:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #18 received at 34889-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
tags 34889 notabug
thanks
I'm closing this because it is not a bug. Please continue the
discussion on emacs-devel, but please don't cross-post to the bug
tracker.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#34889; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:06:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #21 received at 34889-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hmm, okay, but then where feature-requests supposed to go?
В Вс, мар 17, 2019 at 6:39 ДП (AM), Eli Zaretskii
<eliz <at> gnu.org> написал:
> tags 34889 notabug
> thanks
>
> I'm closing this because it is not a bug. Please continue the
> discussion on emacs-devel, but please don't cross-post to the bug
> tracker.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#34889; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 12:55:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #24 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
>
> A lot of open-source projects already migrated to gitlab: all
> FreeDesktop projects, all Gnome projects; and KDE are likely to migrate
> soon too². Gnome reports: "After switching to GitLab, I noticed almost
> immediately an increase in contributions from people I hadn’t met
> before. I think GitLab really lowered the threshold for people getting
> started"³.
>
I agree. I contribute often on github/gitlab, and the process is very
simple. In comparison, Emacs has hurdles that requires much more motivation
and persistance in order to contribute.
I think it boils down to this: on github/gitlab, almost everything is
handled by git itself: you propose/test changes by creating/pulling
branches on the repository/fork... so you basically only need to use git
and click a few buttons in the browser (or use magithub/emacs-gitlab etc).
With the Emacs model, you need to go back & forth between emails and git,
copying patches, applying them, keeping track of where each changes is,
etc. The extra step does not look like much but it is a lot, especially for
simple changes.
> 4. Impossible to lose "merge request". I've seen in Emacs docs an
> advice to send patch series to a bugtracker, because on emacs-devel
> they can easily be forgotten. That can't happen so easily with gitlab,
> where you have a tab with open merge requests.
>
Yeah, the maintainer job is easier, no need to remember which topics are
the active ones. Searching for existing or past similar issues also feels
simpler, but I guess that is just habit.
> 5. Discussion on patch series is easier to read. On mailing lists
> can
> quickly appear a dozen of no longer relevant review mails, that refer
> to something that was addressed. In Gitlab the addressed comments can
> be marked as such, and get collapsed.
>
It's also easier to view the current states of the commits, you don't need
to search for the latest patch in the list of emails.
Now, the Emacs model is similar to the linux kernel dev & the git dev
workflow, so obviously "it works fine" and has advantages too, but
personally I think those are outweighted by the the disadvantages (or
rather than the contribution experience is much nicer with gitlab).
Kind regards,
Philippe
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#34889; Package
emacs.
(Sun, 17 Mar 2019 15:20:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #27 received at 34889 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 07:04:57 +0300
> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> Cc: 34889-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>
> Hmm, okay, but then where feature-requests supposed to go?
Requests to add features to Emacs should indeed be sent to the
tracker. But you were raising an issue with the Emacs development
process, not with the Emacs software. So the proper place to discuss
what you wanted is on emacs-devel.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
(Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:24:05 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 5 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.