From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2E493858024 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:52:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org F2E493858024 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BB1F830067D7; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:51:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:51:59 +0100 From: Mark Wielaard To: Andrew Burgess Cc: Joel Brobecker , Luis Machado , Simon Marchi , Simon Marchi via Gdb Subject: Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF? Message-ID: <20230216095159.GD6028@gnu.wildebeest.org> References: <87mt5kunum.fsf@redhat.com> <20230212124345.GH2430@gnu.wildebeest.org> <87r0utu6ew.fsf@redhat.com> <65409b73-fc6d-9a89-3541-31eb1a0b0791@arm.com> <87bklxtx7r.fsf@redhat.com> <7112932f-4260-2f33-e619-c7130e0abb20@arm.com> <87zg9fkmt4.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zg9fkmt4.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3031.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 02:47:35PM +0000, Andrew Burgess wrote: > > Good or bad, my concern is that the younger generation views emails > > as antiquated and at the same time they have grown up learning about > > collaboration using systems such as GitLab or GitHub. > > I'd avoid the word 'antiquated' as it (too me) seems to have negative > connotations. > > But I agree, many developers are familiar with a pull-request > development model, and I think it has many advantages over our current > way of doing things, I'd be very much in favour of switching to a PR > style system. > > That doesn't mean there aren't also advantages to how we do things > today. Yes. What I really like is that email based discussions of patches makes it a real conversation about what we are doing. So I don't want to loose that. But I do like some of the automation, especially pre-commit testing and patch tracking. Fact is that some people do find it hard to sent patches through email. And if they don't submit the patch in the first place, there is no conversation to be had. For those that are comfortable with git (a requirement for many projects these days), but get stuck on setting up git send-email or attaching their patch in their email client, I would recommend pointing new developers at the sourceware sourcehut mirror: https://sr.ht/~sourceware/binutils-gdb There they can interact with the repository through a website and let sr.ht sent the patches for them (it will use git send-email for them, but they can just click together their "pull request". And we get a nice correctly formatted patch email that can then be discussed as normal. Some of the automation to test patches early is now provided by builder.sourceware.org where you can push any patch to a user try branch to make sure it at leasts builds, has correct python formatting, and passes a subset of the testsuite on ~10 different distros/arches. https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders?tags=gdb-try git-pw and b4 make it easy to interact with patchwork.sourceware.org and inbox.sourceware.org. The missing piece is connecting patchwork and buildbot so you have a nice overview of which tests a patch passed/failed. This is really what the Sourceware infrastructure roadmap is about https://lwn.net/Articles/898655/ We aren't fully there yet, but are making nice progress https://www.fsf.org/events/sourceware-infrastructure-a-presentation-and-community-q-a Cheers, Mark