Document GitLab as the only way to contribute to Samba?

[ronnie sahlberg]

I think something like this needs a lot more discussion than "need new
process because I don't want to read patches."

Now, samba is a very active project, and like the linux kernel, a very
unusual project in that almost all main contributors are
paid to work part or full time on samba,
That is not the norm for the average open source projects.

Anytime you add special hoops and gatekeepers to contribute patches
you will turn away new contributors.
That is fine if you don't see it as an issue if it might turn
occasional contributors away.
The norm for most open source project IS to send patches to the list
and get feedback on them.
Even the linux kernel works that way, although it is split into
several subsystem specific mailinglists.


I think from what you are saying is that the real problem is that
contributors send patches to the list but the core
developers do not care/ do not want to do patch review, and that is
why the patches are ignored and forgotten.

If that is the problem, then just changing to a much much harder and
different process to  contribute patches
is not going to address the problem. I mean, if people can not care to
review patches that are sent to the list, why
would you think people would review the same patches if they were
contributed via a different mechanism?


If the problem is that core contributors do not want to or have time
to review patches then the correct solution would
probably be to have everyone set aside one day a week to work on
project hygiene, and spend that whole day ONLY on working on
patch review rather than invent a new system that might stop these
patches from being submitted in the first place.

You even say in a post that you don't care and wont review any patches
that are sent to the mailing list.
If that is how most core developers think of patch review, maybe that
is the actual problem.


Flamethrower off.

Regards
Ronnie

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:30 PM Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical
<samba-technical at lists.samba.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 09:01 +0100, Rowland penny via samba-technical
> wrote:
> > On 21/06/2019 08:44, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 08:13 +0100, Rowland penny via samba-technical
> > > wrote:
> > > > Sorry, but I do not think it is 'wrong' to not want to use git-lab.
> > > > Perhaps we should 'prefer' people to use git-lab, but we definitely
> > > > shouldn't tell anybody off for sending a patch directly to samba-technical.
> > > >
> > > G'Day Rowland,
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate a bit more?  Can you explain a bit more why?  Can I
> > > help you set up your account?
> > >
> > > It would be really good to have you on-board.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Andrew Bartlett
> >
> > I wasn't actually thinking of myself.
> ..
> > I was thinking of other potential users.
> >
> > Rowland
>
> Thanks Rowland.
>
> I would say that is the same for me.
>
> So, for those other potential users, I think we both want to guide
> users to the path of most likely success, right?
>
> The problem as I see it is that sending the patches to samba-technical
> risks them simply being lost, particularly if folks are not 'told off'
> and re-directed to GitLab.
>
> Quite bluntly, I don't review patches sent here.  I simply don't have
> the time to spend on it, and on the flip side the merge requests
> page[1] is a great TODO list for me.
>
> Now, thankfully, I'm not the only reviewer, but it makes me feel sad if
> we document methods with a lower chance of success alongside the way
> that works better for both reviewer and submitter.
>
> If the submitter doesn't send the patch to GitLab CI, someone else
> needs to, and then be the human messenger when it fails etc.  (This
> leaves less time to review patches, which is why I don't do that any
> more.)
>
> It makes me sad because I feel for our contributors, and I want them to
> feel that if they follow our advise, their patches will be well
> considered.
>
> Given that, do you see the advantage in having a single, uniform,
> 'right' way to submit patches?  Is there anything more I can to to help
> you support, or at least not object to, my proposal?
>
> Finally, I would encourage you to try out GitLab, it is much easier to
> support something you have used, and my offer still stands.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>
> [1] https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/merge_requests
> --
> Andrew Bartlett                       http://samba.org/~abartlet/
> Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
> Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
>
>
>
>