Progress on GitHub and alternatives

Sun Sep 13 23:09:45 UTC 2015

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-09-13 at 16:15 -0500, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 12:48 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 12:35 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 11:07 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 06:12:11PM +1200, Andrew Bartlett
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 17:28 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> > > > > > > G'Day,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > For the past while it has concerned me that we need a
>> > > > > > > better
>> > > > > > > review
>> > > > > > > system and that we should have a mirror and be accepting
>> > > > > > > contributions
>> > > > > > > via github.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > To be clear, github isn't really a review system, but it
>> > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > massive
>> > > > > > > user community that we want to try to better connect
>> > > > > > > with.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The plan is to make every github pull request turn into a
>> > > > > > > mail
>> > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > mailing list, so that we keep our mailing-list based
>> > > > > > > workflow.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The URL for the official Samba Team repo is:
>> > > > > > > https://github.com/samba-team/samba
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I've done this now, and we have some test notification
>> > > > > > scripts
>> > > > > > sending mail to testlist.
>> > > > > > You can see how this looks at
>> > > > > > https://lists.samba.org/archive/testlist/2015
>> > > > > > -September/thread.html
>> > > > > > It needs a lot of work to be really nice, but it is a
>> > > > > > start.
>> > > > > >  Pull
>> > > > > > request on
>> > > > > > https://github.com/abartlet/gh-mailinglist-notifications
>> > > > > >  are
>> > > > > > very, very welcome.
>> > > > > > I'm also trying to get another tool working:
>> > > > > > https://github.com/abartlet/pull-request-mailer
>> > > > > > This will post patches to the list, but for now it times
>> > > > > > out
>> > > > > > trying
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > clone the samba repo, so needs some love.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Great work Andrew, thanks for doing this !
>> > > >
>> > > > I have both scripts up and running.  What I need now is some
>> > > > feedback
>> > > > from you and the rest of the community.
>> > > >
>> > > > I need to know which of the scripts (or both) to run long term.
>> > > >  Look
>> > > > here:
>> > > >
>> > > > https://lists.samba.org/archive/testlist/2015
>> > > > -September/thread.html
>> > > >
>> > > > and tell me what you like, and what you don't.  If you want to
>> > > > see
>> > > > the
>> > > > actual mail output, the subscription page is here:
>> > > >
>> > > > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/testlist
>> > > >
>> > > > I also need folks to push their own patches to github, make
>> > > > pull
>> > > > requests and comment on the workflow.
>> > > >
>> > > > Currently, the service running git-format-patch (pull-request
>> > > > -mailer)
>> > > > *will* automatically CC mails to those listed as From and
>> > > > Signed
>> > > > -off
>> > > > -by
>> > > > in patches in pull requests.  Let me know if that would be an
>> > > > issue.
>> > > >
>> > > > The other script, gh-mailinglist-notifications attaches the
>> > > > patches
>> > > >
>> > > > to
>> > > > just one mail, which I understand may be a preference.
>> > > >
>> > > > Finally, we need to figure out how we will communicate back to
>> > > > the
>> > > > author, as sadly replies to these mails won't make it back to
>> > > > github.
>> > > > Either a few of us become members of the project and get the
>> > > > direct
>> > > > pull request mails as well (that can be replied to), or we can
>> > > > leave
>> > > > pull-request-mailer to write a message like this one
>> > > > https://github.com/samba-team/samba/pull/7
>> > >
>> > > Depending on the feedback, I'll enable mails to samba-technical
>> > > in a
>> > > day or two, and then my plan, again depending on feedback it to
>> > > announce on samba-announce that we are now accepting pull
>> > > requests on
>> > > github.
>> > >
>> > > The need to send in a Developers Certificate of Origin (if
>> > > working
>> > > for
>> > > a company) and to add signed-off-by lines will still apply.
>> > >
>> > > We should also update our README file, as this is what github
>> > > users
>> > > see
>> > > first.
>> >
>> > I've now pointed the script at samba-technical.  New pull requests
>> > will
>> > mail our list here.
>> >
>> > I've chosen to use only my updated gh-mailinglist-notifications
>> > script,
>> > not the one that uses git-send-email, as our preference is for
>> > attached
>> > patches, not one-patch-per-mail.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Andrew Bartlett
>> >
>>
>> I submitted a patch through GH this morning; other than my usual
>> issues with git (I'll not start that rant here and now if only to
>> keep
>> things civil), it worked flawlessly and the comment that I posted
>> came
>> through without issue as well.  Well done!
>
> Well, those mails were delivered to me and you, but sadly not the list.
>  I forgot to change the list over, but that should be fixed now.
>
>> I do, however, have a question regarding workflow; I assume non-Team
>> contributors still need 2 Team member sign offs.  Is there a way to
>> make this clear on GH that all pull requests will remain pending
>> until
>> they have two sign offs without a NACK?  Also, how is the
>> "reviewed-by" system working?  I'm thinking the easiest way would be
>> in the comment section of the pull request (it'll go to the mailing
>> list for archival), but that would require nearly all Samba team
>> members to have a GH login and troll the pull request queue which
>> isn't completely unreasonable, but it is Yet Another Process that
>> drags down productivity.
>
> This is where things break down a little.  The alternative script I had
> would write a note into the issue saying that discussion continues on
> samba-technical.  I've not ported that into the script we run, but we
> may have to.  We also don't CC the person who opened the pull request,
> or note their e-mail (if set to public), so they don't see any non
> -github followup, and a reply-to would probably be a really good idea.
>
> A helpful thing you could do would be simply to rewrite our README
> file.  In particular it needs a section at the top on how to contribute
> from github.  (The README is essentially the home page for a github
> project).
>
>> I'm almost of mind to say that someone should curate if the stream of
>> commits from GH becomes steady.  I would volunteer to do this, but
>> I'm
>> afraid I don't have a deep enough knowledge of all the various layers
>> of Samba to be of much use in picking out and prioritizing the pull
>> queue.
>>
>> Most likely I'll have more feedback as we go through merging my pull
>> request, but so far it's been relatively seamless and slightly easier
>> than git-format-patch/git-email-patch for a simple git feature
>> branch.
>
> This will indeed be an iterative process, as we learn more about how it
> works out.
>
> Thanks for giving it a try!
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>

Sounds reasonable.  I'll update the README and send a pull request.

We can probably side step part of the email issues by requiring an
email address in the sign off line; that should always be in the patch
anyway.  At the least, you can notify them via email where the mailing
list thread for their patch is.  That might be at least an easy early
notification system until something better is in place.

-- 
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.