From: Claudio Bantaloukas <claudio.bantaloukas@arm.com>
To: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
Overseers mailing list <overseers@sourceware.org>,
Joseph Myers <josmyers@redhat.com>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>,
Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@sergiodj.net>
Subject: Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 13:54:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98a5201e-3407-43b8-a0f9-c5b1c9a3d20b@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240501212618.GB6469@gnu.wildebeest.org>
On 5/1/2024 10:26 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 04:04:37PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 5/1/24 12:15, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> We're currently using patchwork to track patches tagged with
>>> RISC-V.� We don't do much review with patchwork.� In that model
>>> patchwork ultimately just adds overhead as I'm constantly trying
>>> to figure out what patches have been integrated vs what are still
>>> outstanding.
>>>
>>> Patchwork definitely isn't the answer IMHO.� Nor is gitlab MRs
>>> which we use heavily internally.� But boy I want to get away from
>>> email and to a pull request kind of flow.
>>
>> Do you (or others) have any thoughts about GitLab FOSS?
>
> The gitlab "community edition" still feels not very much "community".
> We could run our own instance, but it will still be "open core" with
> features missing to try to draw you towards the proprietary hosted
> saas version. Also it seems to have way too much overhead. The focus
> is clearly corporate developers where managers want assurances the
> mandatory "pipelines" are executed and "workflows" followed exactly.
Hi Mark,
I'm clearly in the "corporate developers" category here, and can testify
that managers don't care about "pipelines and workflows". They do care
that people's (very expensive) time be used sparingly.
The most expensive time is reviewer time so the reasoning behind running
CI pipelines or workflows before review is that it's not a good use of
people's time to review a patch which breaks tests.
The next most expensive time is that spent investigating breakages which
could have been avoided with automated testing.
It doesn't matter what the tool's name is: as long as one can see the
change (diffs), whether the change is likely to break stuff (that's CI)
and fellow hacker's comments in one place without having to trawl
through multiple systems or set up complex local machinery, that's a
recipe for faster reviews happening once a build is "green".
I think we can agree that's a good thing!
Github and GitLab are good from a corporate standpoint and they do the
"all the info I need in one place" thing well, but are not exactly Libre.
Has anyone considered https://forgejo.org/ ?
It's a Libre fork of Gitea. Has functionality similar to github but is
Libre and openly advocating compatibility between forges.
Cheers,
--
Claudio Bantaloukas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-02 12:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-17 23:27 Mark Wielaard
2024-04-18 6:04 ` Thomas Koenig
2024-04-18 8:14 ` FX Coudert
2024-04-18 9:01 ` Christophe Lyon
2024-04-18 11:38 ` Janne Blomqvist
2024-04-18 12:01 ` Generated files in libgfortran for Fortran intrinsic procedures (was: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans) Tobias Burnus
2024-04-18 12:32 ` Martin Uecker
2024-04-19 9:35 ` Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans Jonathan Wakely
2024-04-18 15:56 ` Joseph Myers
2024-04-18 17:37 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2024-04-18 17:54 ` Joseph Myers
2024-04-18 18:29 ` Matt Rice
2024-04-22 15:39 ` Tom Tromey
2024-04-23 2:55 ` Jason Merrill
2024-04-23 3:12 ` Simon Marchi
2024-04-23 3:24 ` Tom Tromey
2024-04-23 3:51 ` Jason Merrill
2024-04-23 8:56 ` Mark Wielaard
2024-04-23 9:39 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2024-04-23 15:08 ` Tom Tromey
2024-04-23 15:25 ` Simon Marchi
2024-04-24 8:49 ` Aktemur, Tankut Baris
2024-04-23 4:06 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2024-04-23 9:30 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2024-04-23 13:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2024-05-01 19:15 ` Jeff Law
2024-05-01 19:38 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-05-01 20:20 ` Mark Wielaard
2024-05-01 20:53 ` Tom Tromey
2024-05-01 21:04 ` Simon Marchi
2024-05-02 15:35 ` Pedro Alves
2024-05-02 23:05 ` Fangrui Song
2024-05-07 16:17 ` Joseph Myers
2024-05-10 10:43 ` Ben Boeckel
2024-05-01 20:04 ` Jason Merrill
2024-05-01 21:26 ` Mark Wielaard
2024-05-01 22:01 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2024-05-02 12:54 ` Claudio Bantaloukas [this message]
2024-05-02 15:33 ` Pedro Alves
2024-05-03 2:59 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2024-05-04 19:56 ` Ben Boeckel
2024-05-05 5:22 ` Benson Muite
2024-05-06 13:58 ` Ben Boeckel
2024-05-07 16:26 ` Joseph Myers
2024-05-01 21:38 ` Jeff Law
2024-05-02 6:47 ` Richard Biener
2024-05-02 11:29 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2024-05-02 14:26 ` Simon Marchi
2024-05-02 11:45 ` Mark Wielaard
2024-05-01 22:56 ` Tom Tromey
2024-04-23 10:34 ` Florian Weimer
2024-04-22 10:01 ` Mark Wielaard
2024-04-22 13:23 ` Joseph Myers
2024-04-19 9:33 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-04-22 10:24 ` Mark Wielaard
2024-04-22 11:40 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-04-23 0:48 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=98a5201e-3407-43b8-a0f9-c5b1c9a3d20b@arm.com \
--to=claudio.bantaloukas@arm.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=josmyers@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=overseers@sourceware.org \
--cc=sergiodj@sergiodj.net \
--cc=tom@tromey.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).