github... need suggestions from you.

github... need suggestions from you.

[Bryan Hundven]

List,

Prior to github, you'd 'git send-email' a change, it would be peer
reviewed here, and once approved, it was applied.

Post github, you fork the repo, make a branch, commit your changes,
and approvals are done prior to merging the change.

From the test run I've done in the last couple of days, this hasn't
worked out so well. And I'm looking for suggestions with this
workflow.

The major problem is that there is seemingly no way to have
notifications of pull requests go to this mailing list:
http://blog.wikichoon.com/2014/04/github-doesnt-support-pull-request.html

So peer review must happen on github. I don't like this and I'm sure
you'd like to review things too.

The next problem is that my changes haven't been peer-reviewed, which
lead to some mishaps with some linaro changes (which ultimately needs
to be rewritten anyways, as there is a better way to manage that using
kconfig options that are already in place). So, I need to eat the dog
food and do pull requests myself.

I'm not going to merge any changes until we can all agree on the
workflow, so please post your thoughts on this topic.

Thanks,

-Bryan

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Andreas Bießmann]

resent due to spam message (ml + ml-owner)

Dear Bryan,

On 2014-12-09 09:24, Bryan Hundven wrote:
> List,
> 
> Prior to github, you'd 'git send-email' a change, it would be peer
> reviewed here, and once approved, it was applied.
> 
> Post github, you fork the repo, make a branch, commit your changes,
> and approvals are done prior to merging the change.

I personally dislike this change. I'll not get an github account just 
for adding changes to ct-ng.
Maybe I'm a bit out-of-date, but I really like the 'git send-email' 
feature and can't get familiar with latest evolutions in opensource 
development tools and work-flows. It seems others can't either. U-Boot 
tried to implement gerrit [1] which would also be a drastic change in 
how to work together. Finally this was stopped in favour of the old 
fashioned way.

All I'd like to say is: Bryan, if you think going to github is a good 
idea, please do so. But please also accept that at least some still want 
to send their changes via mail. If going to github also means we kill 
the list, the mail would finally end at your address.

best regards

Andreas Bießmann

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/173795

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Bryan Hundven]

Andreas,

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Andreas Bießmann <andreas@biessmann.de> wrote:
> Dear Bryan,
>
> On 2014-12-09 09:24, Bryan Hundven wrote:
>>
>> List,
>>
>> Prior to github, you'd 'git send-email' a change, it would be peer
>> reviewed here, and once approved, it was applied.
>>
>> Post github, you fork the repo, make a branch, commit your changes,
>> and approvals are done prior to merging the change.
>
>
> I personally dislike this change. I'll not get an github account just for
> adding changes to ct-ng.
> Maybe I'm a bit out-of-date, but I really like the 'git send-email' feature
> and can't get familiar with latest evolutions in opensource development
> tools and work-flows. It seems others can't either. U-Boot tried to
> implement gerrit [1] which would also be a drastic change in how to work
> together. Finally this was stopped in favour of the old fashioned way.
>
> All I'd like to say is: Bryan, if you think going to github is a good idea,
> please do so. But please also accept that at least some still want to send
> their changes via mail. If going to github also means we kill the list, the
> mail would finally end at your address.
>
> best regards
>
> Andreas Bießmann
>
> [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/173795

Lets look at some simple stats:

Disclaimers:
  * emails not added to the stats for obvious reasons!
  * a few user names are duplicated because of bad commits with
     unbalanced quotations in the users name. I've done it a few times(6)... and
     gesh.. Yann did it 2511 times! :P :)
  * I have a no-nonsense, "matter of fact" attitude, and if you read
too deep into what I'm
    saying, I may seem snarky and offending. If you're offended, then focus on
    the code and not my attitude. If you get mad at me for my attitude, I will
    ignore you and go back to code. The focus: Code
  * I don't like politics, it's the fast-path to my bad side. This is
a community, not a
    congress.

$ git shortlog -sn

  2511 Yann E. MORIN"
    50 Bryan Hundven
    48 Benoît Thébaudeau"
    40 Yann E. MORIN
    32 Titus von Boxberg
    26 Benoît THÉBAUDEAU"
    15 Johannes Stezenbach
    15 Zhenqiang Chen
    14 David Holsgrove
    11 Michael Hope
    11 Titus von Boxberg"
    10 Daniel Zimmermann
     8 Anthony Foiani
     8 Arnaud Lacombe
     8 Joachim Nilsson
     8 Thomas Petazzoni
     7 Cody P Schafer
     7 Esben Haabendal
     7 Yann Diorcet
     6 Bryan Hundven"
     6 Martin Lund
     6 Richard Strand
     5 Bart van der Meulen
     5 Bart vdr. Meulen
     5 Cody Schafer
     5 Florian Fainelli
     5 Ray Donnelly
     4 Fabian Freyer
     4 Martin Lund"
     4 Remy Bohmer
     4 danielrubiob
     3 Bart vdr Meulen
     3 Daniel Price
     3 Frederic Roussel
     3 Frederic Roussel"
     3 Jang, Bongseo
     3 Robert P. J. DAY"
     3 Samuel Martin"
     3 Thomas De Schampheleire
     2 Bernhard Walle
     2 Ingmar Schraub
     2 Jerzy Grzegorek"
     2 Niels Penneman
     2 Samuel Martin
     2 Trevor Woerner
     2 Zhuang Yuyao
     1 Alexandre Belloni
     1 Andreas Bießmann
     1 Andrzej Bieniek"
     1 Andy Gibbs"
     1 Anton Leontiev
     1 Antony Pavlov
     1 Arnaud Vrac
     1 Austin Morton
     1 Blair Burtan
     1 Bob Dunlop
     1 Chih-Min Chao
     1 Daniel Dittmann
     1 Daniel Rubio Bonilla
     1 Daniel Schultze
     1 Darcy Watkins
     1 Doug Kehn
     1 Erik Inge Bolsø
     1 Giammarco Zacheo
     1 Heiko Zuerker
     1 Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh"
     1 Jason T. Masker
     1 Javier Viguera
     1 Jean-Marie Lemetayer
     1 Jim F
     1 Jon Ringle
     1 Jonathan Liu
     1 Jongsung Kim
     1 Kalle Kankare
     1 Kévin PETIT
     1 Martin Guy
     1 Matthieu Crapet
     1 Nate Case
     1 Oron Peled
     1 Oron Peled"
     1 Richard Braun
     1 Simon Pasch
     1 Solomon Peachy
     1 Willy Tarreau
     1 Yann Diorcet (diorcet yann
     1 Zoltan Devai
     1 blueness
     1 convert-repo
     1 goodmenlinux@gmail.com
     1 harold
     1 nyet

Not trying to pull rank or anything, but... what you're saying is that
all the people that have privately emailed me to thank me for moving
to github (which have more historical commits then you have) should be
negated by one person's desire to not use github?

Trust me, if more people tell me to not move to github, then I will
take it into account!
So far, I have 1 for "No".

I have both repositories (github.com and crosstool-ng.org) up, people
are opening pull requests on github and sending patches via the
mailing list, and I'm still applying both. So, really... Nothing has
really changed. I'm currently not forcing either situation. So...
Relax! :) :) :)

The advantage to using github, solely, is to remove the burden of
maintaining the infrastructure needed to host the repository, manage
the patches to be applied/merged, the website, all while picking up
the ability to track issues/bugs (that we currently do not have). I
have other ideas and uses for the actual server everything is running
on, so it is not going away any time soon.

****

Now, to take a step back and compare the sample use-case of u-boot and
gerrit that you brought up.

I read the whole thread, and if you notice, it also wasn't a forced switch!

Vadim setup a "SAMPLE" gerrit instance to test if it helped or
hindered the development process for u-boot. Which it obviously did
not fit their development process. U-boot's development process is
much different the crosstool-NG's.

Crosstool-NG has a mainline development process. Historically, after a
release was cut, a branch was made to maintain that branched version
(as per the goals of crosstool-NG). That has sort of fallen off since
we converted from mercurial to git, but I plan on picking that piece
back up.
Also... No one has sent any patches for previous releases, so maybe
it's not relative anymore... different topic of discussion. It's made
up mostly of shell scripts and makefiles that in-turn build other
tools into a toolchain. So I don't see this as "Software development"
as much as I see it as "Scripting". But, we don't have any crazy
branching in our development workflow.

U-Boot has a mainline branch, but topics of development are done in
"Topic Branches", and then merged into the mainline branch as they are
approved. Then either those topic branches are removed, or rebased to
master and continued. Their code base is largely C and Assembly, with
a mix of other stuff to build and automate u-boot. It is widely more
complex then crosstool-NG, and the development workflow is totally
different.

It's not surprising that gerrit did not work for them, since of all
the non-android projects that have tried to use gerrit have reverted
away from it.

Gerrit does not work well with non-android projects. Gerrit becomes a
gatekeeper for the development process, instead of just using git. You
are required to install the gerrit command line tools, if you don't
want to use the web interface. Getting everyone to change their
workflow is not intuitive.

Github != Gerrit

Github does not get in the way of the development process. It's Just
Git! (with some services around it, and some social stuff, which I
don't care too much about)

Github does not integrate with your google account. I personally am
looking to move away from using my google account for my developmet
tasks, but that's not part of this conversation.

The only thing github does for us is set access control on who can
commit directly to the repository, which I hope increases in time, as
I don't want the project to depend on ONE person to keep the project
going. It also does something we don't have which is to keep track of
issues.

Again, it shouldn't get in the way. You don't need any command tools,
besides git. I've used github for quite some time, and I rarely need
to use the web interface. I can handle most tasks from my email client
(as I said, is changing for my development work) and my git client.
You as a developer (non-maintainer) shouldn't need the web interface
for anything but opening a pull request (which is just clicking one
button) and making a new tree (which you probably won't do much if you
just work in crosstool-NG). You can do all of your branching and
everything else just as you normally would with your own git
repository.

I'm currently researching how we can integrate github and the mailing
list. I don't want the mailing list to go away, and I'd like the
ability for pull requests and changes to go back and forth to github
from the mailing list and visa-versa. There is this whole service
backend for github, and I'm sure there is a way to make this work!
Research == Time.

***

Now, I get that the review style changes a lot! It doesn't work the
same way we have normally done changes on crosstool-ng and it is a
MAJOR change! I am personally struggling with that change myself. So
don't take what I'm writing personally! :)
If you do, then I'm not going to take your issues personally, and will
just ignore you and get back to code.

I'm also learning to be a maintainer, by way of being thrown at the
wolves. Hello! :D

This email went out to the community to get *constructive* feedback. I
am not interested in hearing:

   "This sucks. Don't do it!" << I will ignore this stuff (from here on out).

Let's work on the constructive part, and I'm sure that if we work
together, we can come up with compromises.

Granted, if you still don't want to work with the community to come up
with a compromise, you can always just fork the project and call it
CrossAndreas-NG, and do what you want. YEAY GPL! :)

***

I've been sectioning off this email with asterisks; Just guessing that
you noticed :)
In this section I'm going to re-word what I originally wrote this
email about, and I'm looking for *constructive* feedback.

We need to come together and figure out a workflow that we can all
live with. Yes, github does things a little different. But what it
does mostly is take a lot of server maintenance cruft off my back.
Here is the github services api:
https://github.com/github/github-services
I'm sure there is stuff in there that we can use to make this work
with our mailing list. Lets work together on this!

Or... you can respond with "No". I will add it to the tally of "No"'s
(currently 1), and if it is more then the number of contributors in
the last year, I will reconsider. It's all based on the communities
decision. Not only mine and not only yours.

Cheers,

-Bryan

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Tom Janson]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bryan Hundven <bryanhundven@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm currently researching how we can integrate github and the mailing
> list. I don't want the mailing list to go away, and I'd like the
> ability for pull requests and changes to go back and forth to github
> from the mailing list and visa-versa. There is this whole service
> backend for github, and I'm sure there is a way to make this work!
> Research == Time.

How about a filtered email forward that sends the Github notifications
to the mailing list?
Not the prettiest solution, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t work.
Could be either a dedicated “fake” user and email (a bot, so to
speak), or e.g. your own, Bryan.
Gmail makes it simple: The notifications have the form
[repo].[user].github.com and Gmail even offers “Filter messages from
this mailing list”.

–TJ

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Andreas Bießmann]

Dear Bryan,

On 2014-12-09 13:15, Bryan Hundven wrote:
> Andreas,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Andreas Bießmann <andreas@biessmann.de> 
> wrote:
>> Dear Bryan,
>> 
>> On 2014-12-09 09:24, Bryan Hundven wrote:
>>> 
>>> List,
>>> 
>>> Prior to github, you'd 'git send-email' a change, it would be peer
>>> reviewed here, and once approved, it was applied.
>>> 
>>> Post github, you fork the repo, make a branch, commit your changes,
>>> and approvals are done prior to merging the change.
>> 
>> 
>> I personally dislike this change. I'll not get an github account just 
>> for
>> adding changes to ct-ng.
>> Maybe I'm a bit out-of-date, but I really like the 'git send-email' 
>> feature
>> and can't get familiar with latest evolutions in opensource 
>> development
>> tools and work-flows. It seems others can't either. U-Boot tried to
>> implement gerrit [1] which would also be a drastic change in how to 
>> work
>> together. Finally this was stopped in favour of the old fashioned way.
>> 
>> All I'd like to say is: Bryan, if you think going to github is a good 
>> idea,
>> please do so. But please also accept that at least some still want to 
>> send
>> their changes via mail. If going to github also means we kill the 
>> list, the
>> mail would finally end at your address.
>> 
>> best regards
>> 
>> Andreas Bießmann
>> 
>> [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/173795
> 
> Lets look at some simple stats:
> 
> Disclaimers:
>   * emails not added to the stats for obvious reasons!
>   * a few user names are duplicated because of bad commits with
>      unbalanced quotations in the users name. I've done it a few 
> times(6)... and
>      gesh.. Yann did it 2511 times! :P :)
>   * I have a no-nonsense, "matter of fact" attitude, and if you read
> too deep into what I'm
>     saying, I may seem snarky and offending. If you're offended, then 
> focus on
>     the code and not my attitude. If you get mad at me for my attitude, 
> I will
>     ignore you and go back to code. The focus: Code
>   * I don't like politics, it's the fast-path to my bad side. This is
> a community, not a
>     congress.
> 
> $ git shortlog -sn

<snip shortlog showing me has just 1 commit>

> Not trying to pull rank or anything, but... what you're saying is that
> all the people that have privately emailed me to thank me for moving
> to github (which have more historical commits then you have) should be
> negated by one person's desire to not use github?

No, that was not my intention. As I said in my first mail please do so, 
but
_also_ accept others to still send patches by mail.

> Trust me, if more people tell me to not move to github, then I will
> take it into account!
> So far, I have 1 for "No".
> 
> I have both repositories (github.com and crosstool-ng.org) up, people
> are opening pull requests on github and sending patches via the
> mailing list, and I'm still applying both. So, really... Nothing has
> really changed. I'm currently not forcing either situation. So...
> Relax! :) :) :)

No problem. Your statement was that 'prior github was "git send-email"',
but 'post github there will be the need for pull requests'. Saying this,
one could assume that some day no emailed patches will be accepted.

You've proven above that I'm not really a tool-chain developer, that's 
true.
But I'm a tool-chain user and have to build a new one from time to time.
Fortunately ct-ng is somewhat stable and meet my needs, but sometimes 
(at
least once) I also find a Bug and like to give the fix back to the 
community.
For me it is way faster to build the fix and send the mail than get an
github account, do the fork, push my branch and send the PR.

Your shortlog above has shown a noticeably list of authors having just
a few commits. I think they are also more ct-ng users than core 
developers.
I assume that for those users the mail way is more efficient than the
proposed way. But this remains to be proven ...

And again, as long as the mail way is still available I see really no
problem.

> The advantage to using github, solely, is to remove the burden of
> maintaining the infrastructure needed to host the repository, manage
> the patches to be applied/merged, the website, all while picking up
> the ability to track issues/bugs (that we currently do not have).

That is reasonable ...

> I
> have other ideas and uses for the actual server everything is running
> on, so it is not going away any time soon.

May statement is, please keep it (the mail way to send patches) even 
longer ;)

> ****
> 
> Now, to take a step back and compare the sample use-case of u-boot and
> gerrit that you brought up.
> 
> I read the whole thread, and if you notice, it also wasn't a forced 
> switch!

You are right. I took that example cause of the need for different 
workflow.
Some where excited about the new approach while some other could not get 
familiar
with the workflow required by this change.

Here we have the suggested new workflow by sending pull requests for 
some
self-maintained repository at github vs. patches via mail to the list. 
In an
abstract way this is comparable.
But you are right, if the majority of the core developers supporting the
suggested workflow it must be implemented. That was not clear to me, 
cause
there where no single response to your mail before.

<snip detailed explanation why gerrit will not work for non android 
projects>

> Github != Gerrit

You are right. I brought that up cause of the change in workflow as 
mentioned
above.

> Github does not get in the way of the development process. It's Just
> Git! (with some services around it, and some social stuff, which I
> don't care too much about)

But it misses a mailing list ... and therefore forces to use pull 
requests.

> Github does not integrate with your google account. I personally am
> looking to move away from using my google account for my developmet
> tasks, but that's not part of this conversation.
> 
> The only thing github does for us is set access control on who can
> commit directly to the repository, which I hope increases in time, as
> I don't want the project to depend on ONE person to keep the project
> going. It also does something we don't have which is to keep track of
> issues.

I think point 1 could be achieved in another way too ... but having an
issue tracker integrated in the SCM is a really good point.

> Again, it shouldn't get in the way. You don't need any command tools,
> besides git. I've used github for quite some time, and I rarely need
> to use the web interface. I can handle most tasks from my email client
> (as I said, is changing for my development work) and my git client.
> You as a developer (non-maintainer) shouldn't need the web interface
> for anything but opening a pull request (which is just clicking one
> button) and making a new tree (which you probably won't do much if you
> just work in crosstool-NG). You can do all of your branching and
> everything else just as you normally would with your own git
> repository.

So having a repo outside github will also work? I do not have a github
account and as said in my first mail do not plan to do so.

> I'm currently researching how we can integrate github and the mailing
> list. I don't want the mailing list to go away, and I'd like the
> ability for pull requests and changes to go back and forth to github
> from the mailing list and visa-versa.

For me this is a new point. Your first mail does not show this position
and I appreciate it.

> There is this whole service
> backend for github, and I'm sure there is a way to make this work!
> Research == Time.
> 
> ***
> 
> Now, I get that the review style changes a lot! It doesn't work the
> same way we have normally done changes on crosstool-ng and it is a
> MAJOR change! I am personally struggling with that change myself. So
> don't take what I'm writing personally! :)
> If you do, then I'm not going to take your issues personally, and will
> just ignore you and get back to code.

Well, as stated above I'm far away from a core developer of ct-ng. At 
most
I'm a user who provides patches from time to time. Maybe sometime I will 
do
reviews too. Then I have to learn the way the community does this. No 
problem
so far ;)

Again, my statement was 'please do not shut down the ability to send 
patches
via mail ever'.

I will not (and as you showed above I'm far away from having that 
standing here
to do so) force the core developers to use a specific workflow.

> I'm also learning to be a maintainer, by way of being thrown at the
> wolves. Hello! :D

Hi ;)

> This email went out to the community to get *constructive* feedback. I
> am not interested in hearing:
> 
>    "This sucks. Don't do it!" << I will ignore this stuff (from here on 
> out).

I think my sentence
'All I'd like to say is: Bryan, if you think going to github is a good 
idea,
please do so. But please also accept that at least some still want to 
send
their changes via mail.'
was constructive, at least this was my intention. And as you have shown: 
The
mail amount from me will not keep you busy continuously ;)

> Let's work on the constructive part, and I'm sure that if we work
> together, we can come up with compromises.
> 
> Granted, if you still don't want to work with the community to come up
> with a compromise, you can always just fork the project and call it
> CrossAndreas-NG, and do what you want. YEAY GPL! :)

I don't think this will happen ever ;)

> ***
> 
> I've been sectioning off this email with asterisks; Just guessing that
> you noticed :)
> In this section I'm going to re-word what I originally wrote this
> email about, and I'm looking for *constructive* feedback.
> 
> We need to come together and figure out a workflow that we can all
> live with. Yes, github does things a little different. But what it
> does mostly is take a lot of server maintenance cruft off my back.
> Here is the github services api:
> https://github.com/github/github-services
> I'm sure there is stuff in there that we can use to make this work
> with our mailing list. Lets work together on this!

I'm sorry, but I don't think I have time to help here. I'm _not_ all
against new stuff, but I'm busy with other stuff. Therefore my 
statement,
please do not complicate the way rare users can support the community.

> Or... you can respond with "No". I will add it to the tally of "No"'s
> (currently 1), and if it is more then the number of contributors in
> the last year, I will reconsider. It's all based on the communities
> decision. Not only mine and not only yours.

I appreciate your democratic attitude.

As said multiple times before. I'm not at the position to force the 
ct-ng
developers to use that workflow or another. All I'd like to say (and 
what
I intended to say in my first mail) is: Please keep the traditional way
to send patches via mail for those users of ct-ng which have 
improvements
and like to support, at least a bit.

As I understand your detailed explanation patches via mail will still
be accepted. Is that true?

best regards

Andreas Bießmann

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Austin Morton]

Bryan,

Another "1 commit" contributor here, so take me opinions with a grain of salt.

I believe github is the best place for any open source community
driven project, and commend you for moving in that direction. My
experience sending a patch in via hg and the mailing list was less
than fun.

Back when this project still used hg I made a contribution, despite
never using hg in my life. I had to setup hg on my machine along with
the correct plugins to generate the emails for the mailing list.
Ultimately it probably took me a few minutes with the help of Google.

My point is this: every project has a different toolchain and steps
required to contribute. This project is changing those requirements.

The fact of the matter is, more people already have, use, and are
familiar with github than not these days. It makes total sense to move
in that direction.

Of course, at the end of the day, if someone does send a patch in via
the mailing list, Bryan could simply push it to a branch himself, open
a pull request at github, and then direct any code review to the PR.

Maintaining a mailing list for development as well as issue tracker
will only serve to confuse and segment the community. In the end, it
makes more sense to use the mailing list for user support/help and
keep code review and other development "stuff" in github.

At the end of the day, creating a github account takes 10 seconds, and
you can then watch the ct-ng repo yourself in order to get email
notifications about issues and pr's (WHICH YOU CAN DIRECTLY REPLY TO
VIA EMAIL). This also allows people to control whether or not they get
spammed with development "stuff" if they are only on the mailing list
for support using ctng.

TL;DR; github simplifies the process and lowers the bar for entry when
contributing IMO, trying to keep both lines of communication (mailing
list and gh issues) alive for development purposes will only stress
out the maintainer and segment the community.

Basically, I would try and convince as many people as you can to use
github instead of the mailing list for code review and patch
submission. It will make your life easier.

Either jump into github with two feet, or not at all.


Just my $0.02,

Austin Morton

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

RE: github... need suggestions from you.

[ANDY KENNEDY]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: crossgcc-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:crossgcc-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Austin Morton
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:35 AM
> To: crossgcc maillist
> Subject: Re: github... need suggestions from you.
> 
> Bryan,
> 
> Another "1 commit" contributor here, so take me opinions with a grain of salt.
> 

I got you beat:  according to the e-mail I'm a 0 commit (though, I did
have several patches that did get accepted into CT-NG???).  I would
rather (now) do the e-mail way as I am not completely familiar with git.
I've been in the corporate world in which I have used various tools like
SVN, CSV, StarTeam, and Perforce.  git, though may be the BEST solution
for OSS, is not something I've ever taken the time to (or been forced to)
learn.

diff -Naur a b > changes

on the other hand, works GREAT for me!

So, I’m in Addreas's camp on this one (but would support what Thomas 
suggested for the main-line, hard-core developers of CT-NG).

My $0.04  (inflation :) )

Andy

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Bryan Hundven]

Austin,

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Austin Morton <austinpmorton@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> Another "1 commit" contributor here, so take me opinions with a grain of salt.
>
> I believe github is the best place for any open source community
> driven project, and commend you for moving in that direction. My
> experience sending a patch in via hg and the mailing list was less
> than fun.
>
> Back when this project still used hg I made a contribution, despite
> never using hg in my life. I had to setup hg on my machine along with
> the correct plugins to generate the emails for the mailing list.
> Ultimately it probably took me a few minutes with the help of Google.
>
> My point is this: every project has a different toolchain and steps
> required to contribute. This project is changing those requirements.
>
> The fact of the matter is, more people already have, use, and are
> familiar with github than not these days. It makes total sense to move
> in that direction.
>
> Of course, at the end of the day, if someone does send a patch in via
> the mailing list, Bryan could simply push it to a branch himself, open
> a pull request at github, and then direct any code review to the PR.
>
> Maintaining a mailing list for development as well as issue tracker
> will only serve to confuse and segment the community. In the end, it
> makes more sense to use the mailing list for user support/help and
> keep code review and other development "stuff" in github.
>
> At the end of the day, creating a github account takes 10 seconds, and
> you can then watch the ct-ng repo yourself in order to get email
> notifications about issues and pr's (WHICH YOU CAN DIRECTLY REPLY TO
> VIA EMAIL). This also allows people to control whether or not they get
> spammed with development "stuff" if they are only on the mailing list
> for support using ctng.
>
> TL;DR; github simplifies the process and lowers the bar for entry when
> contributing IMO, trying to keep both lines of communication (mailing
> list and gh issues) alive for development purposes will only stress
> out the maintainer and segment the community.
>
> Basically, I would try and convince as many people as you can to use
> github instead of the mailing list for code review and patch
> submission. It will make your life easier.
>
> Either jump into github with two feet, or not at all.

I feel exactly the same on this topic.

For one, I'm a fairly busy person and tracking the mailing list is not
my strong suit, although you can tell (by watching merges of pull
requests and ability to track issues on github) that management via
github is much simpler.

With all due respect to Yann for starting this project and his ability
to track the mailing list - there were many times when contributions
were posted and passed without comments or being applied because of
his busy schedule. If it wasn't for Yann, I (and many others) would
not be here. Yann continues to provide guidance and development on
crosstool-ng. I have no words to describe my gratitude to him, except
that I need to order tickets to the next ELC in europe so that I can
buy him and the free-electrons devs some beer and a few rounds of
billiards! :D

More so then those that contributed (first time committers or
otherwise) are those that help out here on the mailing list! Those
stats are harder to collect and the work those who provide support on
this mailing list is in great debt! Many of those that have one or two
commits have also contributed their time in helping others here. So my
thanks respectively go out to them as well!

With all that, I am still investigating a way to make this all
co-exist, although I feel what Austin is saying here (cut from above):

> Maintaining a mailing list for development as well as issue tracker
> will only serve to confuse and segment the community. In the end, it
> makes more sense to use the mailing list for user support/help and
> keep code review and other development "stuff" in github.

...And I don't want that. I also see the mailing list (and the
irc.freenode.net #crosstool-ng channel) as ways to get support for
crosstool-ng, and general discussions and RFCs. The mailing list is
called "CrossGCC", and isn't (and shouldn't be) specific to
crosstool-ng. It is about discussion on creating cross compilers with
gcc, in the general sense.

I'm always happy to help people with using the new github workflow, so
please ask if you need help!
If patches are sent to the mailing list, I won't discard them. I will
do what I can to get them in too!
But review on the patches and issues with crosstool-ng need to be
managed in github.

I just started a new job, so things may not happen right away here at
the end of this year/beginning of next, but after the dust settles I
hope to have patchwork up to date and documentation updated in
crosstool-ng.

Cheers,

-Bryan

>
> Just my $0.02,
>
> Austin Morton
>
> --
> For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
>

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hello,

Am 16.12.2014 um 03:46 schrieb Bryan Hundven:
>> Basically, I would try and convince as many people as you can to use
>> github instead of the mailing list for code review and patch
>> submission. It will make your life easier.
>>
>> Either jump into github with two feet, or not at all.
> 
> I feel exactly the same on this topic.
> 
> For one, I'm a fairly busy person and tracking the mailing list is not
> my strong suit, although you can tell (by watching merges of pull
> requests and ability to track issues on github) that management via
> github is much simpler.

I totally disagree here. I can't see a difference between the time
needed by reading mails on a mailing list and a web UI, so that's no
point for dropping the mailing list. So why should I change my work flow
to browse through a web interface if I can do the same by reading my mails?
And for me I can follow a well structured patchset via git-email better
than on various web sites. Note there is more than the github service!

> With all due respect to Yann for starting this project and his ability
> to track the mailing list - there were many times when contributions
> were posted and passed without comments or being applied because of
> his busy schedule. If it wasn't for Yann, I (and many others) would
> not be here. Yann continues to provide guidance and development on
> crosstool-ng. I have no words to describe my gratitude to him, except
> that I need to order tickets to the next ELC in europe so that I can
> buy him and the free-electrons devs some beer and a few rounds of
> billiards! :D

Yes, it's up to the devs to track the ML or merge requests. But
crosstool is also using patchwork which is great for not loosing any
patches with the command line tool or the web UI itself.
And discussions I also prefer to take via a classical mailing list.
Every mailing list is a push service, but on the web interfaces it's up
to you to get the infos. So no, I like the automatism to get a email if
someone is writing something.

[...]
>> Maintaining a mailing list for development as well as issue tracker
>> will only serve to confuse and segment the community. In the end, it
>> makes more sense to use the mailing list for user support/help and
>> keep code review and other development "stuff" in github.

Definitive no!
Why the hell only working on github? It's overkill especially for
one-time committer to only accept the workflow via a github pull
request. I won't do that!
If it will happen I'm out a here.

> ...And I don't want that. I also see the mailing list (and the
> irc.freenode.net #crosstool-ng channel) as ways to get support for
> crosstool-ng, and general discussions and RFCs. The mailing list is
> called "CrossGCC", and isn't (and shouldn't be) specific to
> crosstool-ng. It is about discussion on creating cross compilers with
> gcc, in the general sense.

Yes but that's the smallest part here. I haven't see any big discussion
about creating cross compilers on the list in the last two years and
there won't be any in the next two years. Around 60% of the traffic was
coming from people with problems while running Yann's scripts, the other
are mostly patches or discussions about the patches.
So please keep the mailing list as it just is! It's a communication
platform without the time pressure like on IRC Channels.

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Austin Morton]

Resend due to plaintext failure.. Yet another reason mailing lists are terrible!

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Austin Morton <austinpmorton@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to point out for a second time that if you create a github
> account (which takes minimal effort) and watch the ct-ng repo from your
> account you will receive email updates for issues and pull requests,
> including all responses to the issue. You can reply to these emails just
> like the mailing list and the responses will be included on the issue in
> github.

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Carsten Schoenert]

Am 16.12.2014 um 17:02 schrieb Austin Morton:
> Resend due to plaintext failure.. Yet another reason mailing lists are terrible!

No, if you use a typical MUA there is no problem at all.
These WebUI are more terrible, but also this GMail interface can be
configured to send non html mails! :)

> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Austin Morton <austinpmorton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would like to point out for a second time that if you create a github
>> account (which takes minimal effort) and watch the ct-ng repo from your
>> account you will receive email updates for issues and pull requests,
>> including all responses to the issue. You can reply to these emails just
>> like the mailing list and the responses will be included on the issue in
>> github.

And I like to point out again, why should I do that if I simply want to
provide a simple patch which I create more quickly like you logged in
into your account.

And you have considered there are places on earth there online bandwith
are costs really money? So no, use Github if like but also respect the
classical way with mail and mailing lists.

Regards
Carsten

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Bryan Hundven]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Carsten Schoenert
<c.schoenert@gmail.com> wrote:
> So no, use Github if like but also respect the
> classical way with mail and mailing lists.

This project is switching to github.

I started this thread because I wanted help from the community on the
"WORK FLOW" for working with github and mailing list. I've never said
that the mailing list is going away, but I digressed when I mentioned
that Austin is right about posting issues on the mailing list causing
divergence from github issues.

The reasons I moved us to github was:
1) ease infrastructure maintenance
2) provide a way to track issues/bugs

Again, I started this thread for constructive conversation around
this, but I've not gotten any, so I'm not going to respond to this
thread and keep pushing forward with github.

-Bryan

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: github... need suggestions from you.

[Harold Grovesteen]

On Wed, 2014-12-17 at 14:15 -0800, Bryan Hundven wrote:

> This project is switching to github.

Excellent

> 
> The reasons I moved us to github was:
> 1) ease infrastructure maintenance
> 2) provide a way to track issues/bugs

Very valid and github addresses these issues.
> 
> Again, I started this thread for constructive conversation around
> this, but I've not gotten any, so I'm not going to respond to this
> thread and keep pushing forward with github.
> 
> -Bryan
> 
I made a small contribution some time back, so really do not have an
opinion about the work flow.  I absolutely hate patches.  However, I am
a developer in another project, the Hercules emulator.

The Hercules project switched to github a couple of years ago.  One of
the best decisions the project made.  Yes, there was griping from the
developers (and users).  From a maintainer perspective this is a good
decision.  You will find even more things you can do with github, for
example, hosting web pages, something the Hercules project does.

I will only add from my experience that it takes some time for the work
flow issues to get resolved.  In the case of the Hercules project none
of the developers were familiar with github so everyone had to go
through a learning curve.  As contributors get more familiar with it and
its use with this project, work flow adjustments will naturally emerge.
That is when the constructive conversation can really occur.  Be patient
and flexible moving forward.  Change is rough for most of us.  The
"bumpy" ride is to be expected.

Keep moving forward!

Harold Grovesteen


--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq