Progress on GitHub and alternatives

[Simo]

On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 10:37 +1200, Andrew Bartlett 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 good idea would also be, for new PRs, to generate a special Message
-Id that is basically a fixed UUID plus the PR number at the end, this
way any further message to the list can generate a In-Reply-to header
that references the original pull request and we get proper threading
of any message sent via github.

Simo.

> 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
>