[gentoo-dev] devmanual moved to github

[gentoo-dev] devmanual moved to github

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Good day,

The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your
local trees using the following command:

Developers: git remote set-url origin
git@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org

Read-only: git remote set-url origin
git://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org

[1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=summary
[2] https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=b5ru
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] devmanual moved to github

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].

No objections to mirroring it there, and accepting pull requests
there.  However, would an outright move be contrary to our social
contract?:

However, Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of software or metadata
unless it conforms to the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser
General Public License, the Creative Commons - Attribution/Share Alike
or some other license approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).

That said, git itself is FOSS, and moving it back is not difficult
should bad things happen (though any in-progress pull-requests/etc
would be lost).  The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself.  Not
sure if others feel strongly about it.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:

> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your
> local trees using the following command:

> Developers: git remote set-url origin
> git@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org

> Read-only: git remote set-url origin
> git://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org

Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to
deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo."

Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server software
wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for a central
piece of Gentoo documentation?

Ulrich

> [1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=summary
> [2] https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] devmanual moved to github

[Peter Stuge]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> > The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
> 
> The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself.  Not sure if
> others feel strongly about it.

I feel strongly against github.

Making something like github the primary point of contact
communicates many negative things for Gentoo IMO.

On the technical level I think it's unneccessary and concretely
unhelpful to limit a git repo workflow to the subset that github
implements.

I guess that Infra might also feel strongly about this. I hope Markos
discussed the move with them already and that any concerns of theirs
were understood.


//Peter

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Duncan]

Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 12 May 2013 09:12:03 -0400 as excerpted:

> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
> 
> No objections to mirroring it there, and accepting pull requests there.
> However, would an outright move be contrary to our social contract? 
> [quoted]
> 
> That said, git itself is FOSS, and moving it back is not difficult
> should bad things happen (though any in-progress pull-requests/etc would
> be lost).  The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself.  Not sure if
> others feel strongly about it.

To me it depends upon how dependent upon github people actually become.

If the primary workflow remains in people's distributed git repos, in 
git, then more copies "out there" including on github is simply more 
redundancy,  As Linus likes to say, "real men" don't make backups, they 
post it to the net and let the dozens (in his case, likely tens of 
thousands, but...) of net copies be their backups.

As soon as github going down becomes a problem, however, or as soon as 
pull requests need to go thru github, then it's a problem, "depending 
upon" according to the social contract.

Arguably, letting github be the primary/only public link is problematic 
in that very way, since at that point github going down is a problem for 
those using the public link.  OTOH, just having a mirror there and 
letting people submit pull requests via github as well as directly, 
shouldn't be a problem.  IMO of course.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] devmanual moved to github

[Ben de Groot]

On 12 May 2013 21:27, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
>>
>> The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself.  Not sure if
>> others feel strongly about it.
>
> I feel strongly against github.
>
> Making something like github the primary point of contact
> communicates many negative things for Gentoo IMO.
>
> On the technical level I think it's unneccessary and concretely
> unhelpful to limit a git repo workflow to the subset that github
> implements.
>
> I guess that Infra might also feel strongly about this. I hope Markos
> discussed the move with them already and that any concerns of theirs
> were understood.
>
>
> //Peter
>

Just push to two remotes, like we have been doing for the qt overlay.

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 05/12/2013 02:15 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
> 
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update
>> your local trees using the following command:
> 
>> Developers: git remote set-url origin 
>> git@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
> 
>> Read-only: git remote set-url origin 
>> git://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
> 
> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to 
> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo."
> 
> Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server
> software wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for a
> central piece of Gentoo documentation?
> 
> Ulrich
> 
>> [1]
>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=summary
>>
>> 
[2] https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
> 

The repository is still accessible in http://git.overlays.gentoo.org
and read-only access is still available. However, the write access
removed because of potential conflicts between g.o.g.o and github. If
you can guarantee me that people will not mess things up and not
commit only to one of the to remotes, then we can enable write access
again.

Besides, most fixes come from users (maybe not the actual patches but
they spot most of the problems) so providing an easier way for them to
contribute is preferred. Moreover, github provides other facilities
such as code reviews, which the Gentoo's gitolite interface does not have.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=qF97
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] devmanual moved to github

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 12/05/2013 14:27, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I feel strongly against github.
> 
> Making something like github the primary point of contact
> communicates many negative things for Gentoo IMO.

Oh heavens, for once I agree with Peter.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Richard Yao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]

On 05/12/2013 09:15 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
> 
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your
>> local trees using the following command:
> 
>> Developers: git remote set-url origin
>> git@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
> 
>> Read-only: git remote set-url origin
>> git://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
> 
> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to
> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo."
> 
> Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server software
> wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for a central
> piece of Gentoo documentation?
> 
> Ulrich
> 
>> [1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=summary
>> [2] https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
> 

The last that I looked, the Verilog designs and other hardware
schematics were not open source either, but we depend on them anyway.

How is github different from any other hardware?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] devmanual moved to github

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 05/12/2013 04:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 12 May 2013 21:27, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
>>> 
>>> The only thing that isn't FOSS is github itself.  Not sure if 
>>> others feel strongly about it.
>> 
>> I feel strongly against github.
>> 
>> Making something like github the primary point of contact 
>> communicates many negative things for Gentoo IMO.
>> 
>> On the technical level I think it's unneccessary and concretely 
>> unhelpful to limit a git repo workflow to the subset that github 
>> implements.
>> 
>> I guess that Infra might also feel strongly about this. I hope
>> Markos discussed the move with them already and that any concerns
>> of theirs were understood.
>> 
>> 
>> //Peter
>> 
> 
> Just push to two remotes, like we have been doing for the qt
> overlay.
> 
> -- Cheers,
> 
> Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki
> admin
> 

Yes but this works for Qt because the number of people with commit
access is very small so we can "sort of" make sure they all have sane
git configurations in place. However, with devmanual, we can't
guarantee that all developers will bother to update their config files
to push to two remotes. Can we?

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=datU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Peter Stuge]

Markos Chandras wrote:
> The repository is still accessible in http://git.overlays.gentoo.org
> and read-only access is still available. However, the write access
> removed because of potential conflicts between g.o.g.o and github.
> If you can guarantee me that people will not mess things up and not
> commit only to one of the to remotes, then we can enable write access
> again.

It makes sense to only have one main repository, but I don't think it
makes sense to make that github.


> Besides, most fixes come from users (maybe not the actual patches but
> they spot most of the problems) so providing an easier way for them to
> contribute is preferred.

Have you operated or used Gerrit? I think it's a really great tool to
kill two birds with one stone; commits can be reviewed, iterated,
accepted and rejected easily and all that is required to contribute
(push a commit to Gerrit) is an OpenID and an SSH key.


> Moreover, github provides other facilities such as code reviews,
> which the Gentoo's gitolite interface does not have.

It's easy to find reasons *against* something. I think it's more
important to consider respective benefits.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Richard Yao wrote:

>> Last time I looked, github's server software wasn't open source.
>> Why should we use non-free tools for a central piece of Gentoo
>> documentation?

> The last that I looked, the Verilog designs and other hardware
> schematics were not open source either, but we depend on them anyway.

> How is github different from any other hardware?

I don't care about their hardware. At least parts of their software
are proprietary, though.

Ulrich

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:

>> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to 
>> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo."

>> Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server
>> software wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for a
>> central piece of Gentoo documentation?

> The repository is still accessible in http://git.overlays.gentoo.org
> and read-only access is still available.

In what way is removing write access different from deprecating the
repository?

> However, the write access removed because of potential conflicts
> between g.o.g.o and github. If you can guarantee me that people will
> not mess things up and not commit only to one of the to remotes,
> then we can enable write access again.

I for my part won't push anything to a devmanual repo hosted at
github. As this presumably means that I won't be able to contribute
any more, I've now removed myself from the devmanual mail alias.

Ulrich

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 05/12/2013 04:48 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
> 
>>> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to 
>>> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo."
> 
>>> Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server 
>>> software wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools
>>> for a central piece of Gentoo documentation?
> 
>> The repository is still accessible in
>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org and read-only access is still
>> available.
> 
> In what way is removing write access different from deprecating
> the repository?
> 
>> However, the write access removed because of potential conflicts 
>> between g.o.g.o and github. If you can guarantee me that people
>> will not mess things up and not commit only to one of the to
>> remotes, then we can enable write access again.
> 
> I for my part won't push anything to a devmanual repo hosted at 
> github. As this presumably means that I won't be able to
> contribute any more, I've now removed myself from the devmanual
> mail alias.
> 
> Ulrich
> 

This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
sad to witness this once again.

I restored +w to g.o.g.o.

I will take care of the github mirroring myself. For those who will
merge pull requests on github, please take extra care to resolve the
merges properly.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=7f1w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> However, the write access removed because of potential conflicts
>> between g.o.g.o and github. If you can guarantee me that people will
>> not mess things up and not commit only to one of the to remotes,
>> then we can enable write access again.
>
> I for my part won't push anything to a devmanual repo hosted at
> github. As this presumably means that I won't be able to contribute
> any more, I've now removed myself from the devmanual mail alias.

I am curious to know your reasoning here. I can understand wanting to
keep an up-to-date copy on Gentoo infra, but I'm not so clear on the
outright refusal to push to Github as well.

Do you simply not wish to create an account there? Can you explain a bit more?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
> sad to witness this once again.
>

I have mixed feelings for this very reason.  The concept of accepting
contributions on github is an EXCELLENT one.  The problem is that it
is proprietary, which creates division, and could potentially create
problems down the road (no way to know - the sorts of things that can
happen anytime you depend on proprietary software).

> I will take care of the github mirroring myself. For those who will
> merge pull requests on github, please take extra care to resolve the
> merges properly.
>

So, first, THANK YOU!

Second, I think this really points to there being value for something
like Gerrit available on Gentoo, which might be the best of both
worlds.  I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just
to start messing with it personally.  I'd be interested in whether
anybody is familiar with it and doesn't feel that it is an appropriate
tool for us to use.  If the consensus is overwhelmingly positive then
it would be great to have it deployed on Gentoo infra.  And yes, I
realize that this is easy to type, but hard work to implement.  I see
dual-workflows like Github as an interim solution.  Personally, I'm
not entirely opposed to even a Github-only solution as an interim if
we were actively working on something FOSS-based, however I realize
that not all might agree on that.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Michael Palimaka]

On 13/05/2013 02:08, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Second, I think this really points to there being value for something
> like Gerrit available on Gentoo, which might be the best of both
> worlds.  I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just
> to start messing with it personally.  I'd be interested in whether
> anybody is familiar with it and doesn't feel that it is an appropriate
> tool for us to use.  If the consensus is overwhelmingly positive then
> it would be great to have it deployed on Gentoo infra.  And yes, I
> realize that this is easy to type, but hard work to implement.  I see
> dual-workflows like Github as an interim solution.  Personally, I'm
> not entirely opposed to even a Github-only solution as an interim if
> we were actively working on something FOSS-based, however I realize
> that not all might agree on that.
>
> Rich
>
>
I am not 100% certain, but I believe Gerrit has been suggested before 
and rejected because it relies on Java, and ReviewBoard because it 
"sucks". Another option that looks nice is GitLab.

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:

> This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
> sad to witness this once again.

I've nothing at all against mirroring the repository at github, or
against accepting pull requests there. However, I think that we
shouldn't rely on third-party servers running proprietary software
for hosting important parts of our documentation.

BTW, we had a very similar discussion two years ago about the PMS
repository, where moving to github had been suggested, too.

> I restored +w to g.o.g.o.

Thank you.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Peter Stuge]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> Gerrit
> ..
> I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to
> start messing with it personally.

Go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad.


Michael Palimaka wrote:
> I believe Gerrit has been suggested before and rejected because it
> relies on Java, and ReviewBoard because it "sucks".

I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.


> Another option that looks nice is GitLab.

How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.


//Peter

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Michael Palimaka]

On 13/05/2013 03:20, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
> for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
> and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something java-based 
there's not much we can do about that.

>
>> Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
>
> How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.
That's the point. :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Theo Chatzimichos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1000 bytes --]

On Sunday 12 of May 2013 19:20:03 Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Gerrit
> > ..
> > I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to
> > start messing with it personally.
> 
> Go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad.
> 
> Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > I believe Gerrit has been suggested before and rejected because it
> > relies on Java, and ReviewBoard because it "sucks".
> 
> I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
> for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
> and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
> 
> > Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
> 
> How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.

Don't ask, just go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad.
I agree that github is sucky, but I don't think rejecting GitLab just because 
it looks exactly like Github makes sense. Look at what the application does 
and how it works first.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Peter Stuge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1216 bytes --]

Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> > > Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
> > 
> > How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.
> 
> Don't ask, just go for it!

That's not very helpful?

I'm happy to expand on my experience with Gerrit, and I'll gladly
answer specific questions if I can.


> It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad.

Great! Have you run it in production or in a lab? Did you encounter
any non-obvious issues?


> I agree that github is sucky, but I don't think rejecting GitLab
> just because it looks exactly like Github makes sense.

Where did you get the idea that anyone is rejecting GitLab?

Especially surprising that you think that *I* would reject GitLab,
since I'm not even a developer.

(Comparing github with Java doesn't make much sense.)


> Look at what the application does and how it works first.

Yes indeed, obviously I tried that, but the gitlab.org webpage
doesn't have a lot of information beyond the github-like screenshots.

Hence my question to the list, where perhaps someone can talk about
gitlab based on their experience.

All pointers to better resources are surely appreciated not only by me.


//Peter

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Peter Stuge]

Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
>> for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
>> and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
> 
> I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something java-based 
> there's not much we can do about that.

We (well you) could try to join infra.


>>> Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
>>
>> How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.
> 
> That's the point. :-)

Ok, do you know if it also enforces some particular workflow like
github does, or if there are knobs to twiddle?


//Peter

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Michael Palimaka]

On 13/05/2013 04:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>> I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
>>> for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
>>> and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
>>
>> I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something java-based
>> there's not much we can do about that.
>
> We (well you) could try to join infra.
Infra? Nobody ever goes in, and nobody ever goes out. :-D


>
>>>> Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
>>>
>>> How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.
>>
>> That's the point. :-)
>
> Ok, do you know if it also enforces some particular workflow like
> github does, or if there are knobs to twiddle?
I haven't used it for anything useful, but there is a demo instance[1].
What sort of workflow do you feel is enforced by github? I haven't 
personally felt constrained by it in the past.

[1]: http://demo.gitlab.com/

[gentoo-dev] GitLab Feature-Set / Was: devmanual moved to github

[sascha-ml]

[...]
> > Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
> 
> How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.

Maybe, I can summarize it up a bit:

- GitLab is a Ruby-On-Rails Application
  => Requires very few setup on a gentoo system: ruby, a webserver and a mysql
     or postgresl database and redis. Some gems. That's it mostly.

- It makes use of a lot of the FOSS-Code which was written by GitHub.

- Itself is licensed under the MIT-License.

- It used to be based around the gitolite shell, but nowadays has it's own
  shell to implement access restrictions on the managed repositories.

- Repositories can be private (to users or teams) or public with write-access
  granted to individuals or teams.

=> Up to here, it's just a way to manage multiple git repositories via http
   and access them via git://, ssh://, http:// and https://
   It can be used just the same way a pure gitolite installation can be used.
   (Which by the way is true for any repository on github as well).

On top of that:

- It supports "Merge Requests", which are almost the same as PRs on Github,
  which allows user contributions to be reviewed quite easily.

- It can trigger web-hooks in a similar way to github.

It has some other nice features - but I personally believe they are not very 
relevant to gentoo:

- Issue tracking per git repository
- Wiki per git repository

I am running an instance of gitlab for some of my private projects. The 
instance is accessed from roughly a dozen scripts and me. I run it including 
it's database (aside to some other services) on a VServer, which has 1 CPU 
assigned to it and 1 gigabyte of ram. Accessing it never appeared any slower 
to me than accessing github (even given that low hardware). Though, i have no 
data on how it scales to bigger environments.

Updates to it are release on a once-per-month basis. Most of the time they are 
quite straight forward and installed in less than 5 minutes.

The overall configure on the above mentioned hardware took me roughly 2 hours 
(sql, nginx, ruby etc being already emerged). This is mostly due to the fact 
gitlab's author mainly targets ubuntu. But it wasn't very hard to adapt the 
instructions to Gentoo w/ OpenRC.

Hopefully these datapoints help to fill up some gaps :-)

Sascha

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
> [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including
Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the
problem.

- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQE8MACgkQRtClrXBQc7VatQD/U4JiZzXYNx8i7H3rs/dBmhkT
QZkPS0LiysoCM1m8dtQBAJcZomDANi5HxzXxhTaVtW0zugLkXcSU8nXWlGLUuuZx
=5mug
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Peter Stuge]

Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
> 
> You keep saying this. What do you mean?

I'll clarify!


> A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and
> nothing else. I don't see the problem.

There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it is
the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, then
github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at all.
(It works of course, but the repo history ends up looking horrible.)


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
>  enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at
> all.
Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted on
GitHub. And for the record I have not had problems with messy merges
when commiting pull requests.
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQFokACgkQRtClrXBQc7WBzQD/YVkIfIUT/meLZOqXUxItU15v
34rmpFFrB7j5LM455oEA/0R6XCoMAWnaMd6t+6l3clnJKa0T0jt731B//qeTBY59
=G1bz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Peter Stuge]

Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
> > enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at all.
> 
> Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted
> on GitHub.

Of course, but 1. github users will not send email to a github
project and 2. if pull requests are rejected then github is not
the primary point of contact so then there is no problem.


> And for the record I have not had problems with messy merges
> when commiting pull requests.

As I wrote: It works fine but doesn't scale; the mess is that you
always get a merge commit, which is usually unneccessary for smaller
contributions such as those from users, as opposed to larger ones
spanning more commits and/or branches worked on over longer time
from developers.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[W. Trevor King]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1243 bytes --]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:24:09AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
> >  enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at
> > all.
>
> Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted on
> GitHub. And for the record I have not had problems with messy merges
> when commiting pull requests.

You can also merge pull requests locally and format them however you
like (including fast forward merges).  GitHub automatically closes the
PR when it's tip commit lands in the target branch.

My major gripe with PRs is folks sometimes add lots of good details to
the PR summary, and then have little one-line commit messages :p.  If
you can convince them to incorperate motivation, etc., in the commit
messages, than the fact that code came in via a PR is irrelevant.

Cheers,
Trevor

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Arun Raghavan]

On 12 May 2013 20:34, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...]
> Besides, most fixes come from users (maybe not the actual patches but
> they spot most of the problems) so providing an easier way for them to
> contribute is preferred. Moreover, github provides other facilities

Is it easier because they already have github accounts or ...?

> such as code reviews, which the Gentoo's gitolite interface does not have.

GNOME and others provide Splinter as a review system on bugzilla.
Coupled with git bz, that should make the patch submission + review
process comparably simple. Thoughts?

Cheers,
--
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Ralph Sennhauser]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 00:24:09 +0200
Alexander Berntsen <alexander@plaimi.net> wrote:

> On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
> >  enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at
> > all.
>
> Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted
> on GitHub. And for the record I have not had problems with messy
> merges when commiting pull requests.

Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day writing
a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of the target
package. When I presented a first git-format-patch I was ask to do a
github pull request instead. So I asked why not git-am? The answer was
- don't be a *beep*. As a result the package never got fixed and I
outright ignore any repo not hosted on Gentoo infra.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 13/05/13 08:32, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day
> writing a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of
> the target package. When I presented a first git-format-patch I was
> ask to do a github pull request instead. So I asked why not git-am?
> The answer was - don't be a *beep*. As a result the package never
> got fixed and I outright ignore any repo not hosted on Gentoo
> infra.
Who was this?
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQkSkACgkQRtClrXBQc7UN4QD/QzGy/KuY6Of7VgUfVR/nJNsV
Q9etYTIG+nVoEQZztfEA/RAxDgX0mfsvpAIww8ln5IHovMMTGNGGP8G08LbpQAk0
=QfbB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 13/05/13 00:37, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> And for the record I have not had problems with messy merges when
>> commiting pull requests.
> As I wrote: It works fine but doesn't scale; the mess is that you 
> always get a merge commit, which is usually unneccessary for
> smaller contributions such as those from users, as opposed to
> larger ones spanning more commits and/or branches worked on over
> longer time from developers.
You don't always get merge commits. I have committed pull requests
without merge commits. See wking's email.
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQkb0ACgkQRtClrXBQc7XRUgEAtMuv081P9CVOLx07Ckk8ydCv
RydQq5z983v3ps15vGIA/2oLQ63PzWIeISJlzH2fz/TPq6iYrVdTaiCFPhpYjcKq
=wRDo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Ralph Sennhauser]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:07:21 +0200
Alexander Berntsen <alexander@plaimi.net> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 13/05/13 08:32, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> > Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day
> > writing a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of
> > the target package. When I presented a first git-format-patch I was
> > ask to do a github pull request instead. So I asked why not git-am?
> > The answer was - don't be a *beep*. As a result the package never
> > got fixed and I outright ignore any repo not hosted on Gentoo
> > infra.
> Who was this?

Don't know why it would be relevant. Also I intentionally didn't
mention any names and wont do so on this list. Feel free to ask me in
private if you have a good reason.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 13/05/13 09:40, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Don't know why it would be relevant. Also I intentionally didn't 
> mention any names and wont do so on this list. Feel free to ask me
> in private if you have a good reason.
If a developer is behaving like that, it is in the interest of Gentoo
that everybody knows who did it and why.

For the record, I offered a patch to a GitHub-hosted Gentoo project a
few days ago, and the maintainer asked me how I wanted to send the
patch, offering me a nigh-plethora of ways... (I uplodaded it to my
homepage, he wgot and git am'd it.)
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQmngACgkQRtClrXBQc7U5vgD/blu1+IOeUppaFqiONOzKAEOQ
66F8fLE1SYVsEG5ZkJsA/RXbrcddXneUoXRFoPQckNLlzHBwRnfiGuDoZ5LqCCrN
=Tui3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Greg KH]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:12:19AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
> You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including
> Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the
> problem.

Linux does not use GitHub for anything, but a lot of users do use the
copy of the kernel tree on GitHub for their own development, which has
nothing to do with the main Linux kernel developer workflow.

Please don't confuse the two.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 13/05/13 14:38, Greg KH wrote:
> Linux does not use GitHub for anything, but a lot of users do use
> the copy of the kernel tree on GitHub for their own development,
> which has nothing to do with the main Linux kernel developer
> workflow.
I misremembered a discussion Linus had in which he said GitHub was
great for hosting (but terrible for stuff like commit messages).
Thanks for correcting me.

My point about using GitHub for hosting only still stands.
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlGQ39IACgkQRtClrXBQc7VizwEAkgYzCZOTO6dPO7Y2j594Z/8j
az6l1qrjWA2j9LiUf7IA/RfA+QGbp9Y+p97DoxX+Qr3BrhE/0XkrZo10YQJDlN++
=b0s3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1258 bytes --]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:32:05 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 00:24:09 +0200
> Alexander Berntsen <alexander@plaimi.net> wrote:
> > On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
> > >  enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at
> > > all.
> >
> > Users can still send patches via email even if the project is hosted
> > on GitHub. And for the record I have not had problems with messy
> > merges when commiting pull requests.
> 
> Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day writing
> a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of the target
> package. When I presented a first git-format-patch I was ask to do a
> github pull request instead. So I asked why not git-am? The answer was
> - don't be a *beep*. As a result the package never got fixed and I
> outright ignore any repo not hosted on Gentoo infra.

Once I found a bug in an ebuild. But unfortunately that ebuild was
stored in a CVS repo, so etc etc.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Duncan]

Alexander Berntsen posted on Mon, 13 May 2013 14:42:58 +0200 as excerpted:

> On 13/05/13 14:38, Greg KH wrote:
[ Reinserting original quote of Alexander Berntsen ]
>>> A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting
>>> and nothing else.
>>>
>> Linux does not use GitHub for anything, but a lot of users do use the
>> copy of the kernel tree on GitHub for their own development, which has
>> nothing to do with the main Linux kernel developer workflow.
> 
> I misremembered a discussion Linus had in which he said GitHub was great
> for hosting (but terrible for stuff like commit messages). Thanks for
> correcting me.
> 
> My point about using GitHub for hosting only still stands.

Greg KH, like I originally did, may have taken the original quote with 
quite a different meaning than you intended.  I originally parsed the 
quote as:

Linux uses nothing else but github

... when you apparently meant...

Linux uses github (purely) for hosting (that is as a mirror), not for 
anything other functions.

I was /this/ close <fingers held close together> to posting an objection, 
when from reading the replies I realized the latter meaning was 
apparently intended, not the former.  It would appear that Greg KH parsed 
the former meaning as well, and replied as I /almost/ did.

It's probably good to clear up the possible misunderstanding either way, 
tho, lest any rumors get started about "the next bitkeeper" and having a 
big-name kernel guy refuting that is about the best way possible to do so.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] GitLab Feature-Set / Was: devmanual moved to github

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM,  <sascha-ml@babbelbox.org> wrote:
> - It supports "Merge Requests", which are almost the same as PRs on Github,
>   which allows user contributions to be reviewed quite easily.

So, out of curiosity I set this up on a VM and started playing with it.

It seemed like the UI for merge requests was limited to merges between
branches on the same repository.  Github lets you make pull requests
between repositories.  Logistically that is a BIG difference.  With a
Github-like model users don't need write access of any kind to the
repository (they do their work in their own forks), but with Gitlab
you'd need to give write access (not sure if you can limit that to
only an incoming branch of some kind, which would be a free-for-all
area (which might also create problems as this is essentially an
arbitrary file hosting area)).

I could be missing something though - seems like a useful tool but it
might be more appropriate to closed teams than for public
contribution.  If somebody knows of something I missed by all means
chime in.

Gerrit also requires letting the public push, but those pushes go to a
contained area and each commit is isolated.

Again, let me know if I missed something.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] GitLab Feature-Set / Was: devmanual moved to github

[Peter Stuge]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> Gerrit also requires letting the public push, but those pushes go
> to a contained area and each commit is isolated.

Hm, how do you mean isolated?

Gerrit introduces the convention to create a unique identifier for a
change the first time a commit is created. If later iterations of
that same logical change (e.g. a second commit after review) keep the
Change-Id line from the original commit message then Gerrit knows
that this commit is a new version of the old one as opposed to an all
new change.

Pushing to Gerrit looks and feels like pushing to a git repository but
in fact the push goes into Gerrit's own database ("contained area")
where it can be reviewed, iterated by pushing again as described
above, submitted (output into the project's (readonly) git repo) or
rejected.

The real beauty of Gerrit is that anything can be accepted into it
without affecting the project's real git repo at all, and that only
an OpenID is required for pushing.

Verification (testing) can be made a requirement before a commit can
be submitted in Gerrit, meaning that some test suite needs to pass
before a commit can enter the git repo.

Some of this can be orchestrated with multiple repositories and lots
of hooks, but Gerrit packages it all up quite nicely.

While Gerrit is probably most often used as a web application, it's
possible to perform most operations, including review, submit and
reject, via SSH. The only thing missing from the SSH interface is
doing inline review. The web interface allows writing review comments
per line in the commit, this is unfortunately not possible via SSH.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] GitLab Feature-Set / Was: devmanual moved to github

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Gerrit also requires letting the public push, but those pushes go
>> to a contained area and each commit is isolated.
>
> Hm, how do you mean isolated?
>
> Gerrit introduces the convention to create a unique identifier for a
> change the first time a commit is created. If later iterations of
> that same logical change (e.g. a second commit after review) keep the
> Change-Id line from the original commit message then Gerrit knows
> that this commit is a new version of the old one as opposed to an all
> new change.
>

Suppose master is Gentoo Portage.  I clone it, make a change to
package foo, and push that commit to gerrit.  You clone it, make a
change to package bar, and push that commit to gerrit.  Those two
commits go into two different requests and don't interfere (well, they
might when merged if they contain conflicts - no avoiding that).  If
at that point somebody else clones the repo they get the official repo
without either of our changes, until at some point our changes get
merged.

It is true that revisions of commits do update each other, but this is
generally desirable.  What is important is that each logical change
stays isolated.

The only way to do this with branching is to have a branch per change
(which could be merged and deleted of course).  Gitlab doesn't seem to
support this though - I don't think there is any safe way to allow
random public users to create branches, and of course if anybody does
this they are published to the world.  Gerrit keeps changes more
tucked away, so that everybody is working off the official repo.  If
you just have everybody share one public branch then it will be a
hodge-podge of commits that require a lot of cherry-picking to work
with.  The public branch itself might not even work, or it might need
constant cleanup.  It might even contain trojans so cloning it would
be at your own risk (it would be safer to clone master and push to
public, which means that everybody is stepping on each other's toes).

Branches do make sense if you have groups working together on a single
change.  I'd encourage them for this use.  However, in the case of
isolated patches the Gerrit model seems better.

Again, I could be missing some Gitlab feature.

>
> While Gerrit is probably most often used as a web application, it's
> possible to perform most operations, including review, submit and
> reject, via SSH. The only thing missing from the SSH interface is
> doing inline review. The web interface allows writing review comments
> per line in the commit, this is unfortunately not possible via SSH.
>

I know a lot of projects like Gerrit (Cyanogenmod comes to mind).
Sure, it is Java, but I'd think it could be reasonably well-contained
in a VM/etc.  It could even be hosted - as long as we have backups/etc
and can recover to our own infra I'd consider that pretty low-risk.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1392 bytes --]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:08:21PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
> > sad to witness this once again.
> >
> 
> I have mixed feelings for this very reason.  The concept of accepting
> contributions on github is an EXCELLENT one.  The problem is that it
> is proprietary, which creates division, and could potentially create
> problems down the road (no way to know - the sorts of things that can
> happen anytime you depend on proprietary software).
 
If github were to go down, all you would have to do is use a command
similar to the one given in the first message of this thread to switch
upstream to another location. I would argue that there really isn't a
hard dependency on github in the same way there would be if they were
using some centralized vcs such as svn.

I think this is a pretty weak argument for systems that use distributed
vcs's like git.

> > I will take care of the github mirroring myself. For those who will
> > merge pull requests on github, please take extra care to resolve the
> > merges properly.
> >
> 
> So, first, THANK YOU!
 
 If we are going to take this stance, should we consider removing all
 packages from the tree that have their upstream on github?

 William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1040 bytes --]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:21:06AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
> > 
> > You keep saying this. What do you mean?
> 
> I'll clarify!
> 
> 
> > A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and
> > nothing else. I don't see the problem.
> 
> There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it is
> the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted, then
> github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
> enforced for all external contributions. That does not scale at all.
> (It works of course, but the repo history ends up looking horrible.)

You can use git remotes on a github-based repository the same way you
would on any git repository, and you can rebase branches before you merge
them into master so you get only fast-forward merges.

So, I do not see how the history is going to look horrible or how merge
commits are "enforced for all external contributions".

William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: devmanual moved to github

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:44 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>  If we are going to take this stance, should we consider removing all
>  packages from the tree that have their upstream on github?
>

Considering that we allow even outright proprietary software in
portage which isn't distributed at all (copy file from CD to
distfiles), we're obviously not going to be concerned about upstreams
on github.

Gentoo's social contract is GENTOO'S social contract.  It governs what
we do, and it doesn't say that we don't accept proprietary software.
It says that we won't DEPEND on proprietary software for our
operations or for anything essential to using Gentoo.

As I already said - I think Github is a gray area.  I'd like to see us
working on an internal workflow tool that is friendly to outsiders
like Gerrit or whatever.  I'd see Github as a useful alternative, or
as an interim solution, but I'd really hate to establish it as the
long-term repository for something that is part of Gentoo without
actively pursuing plans to move it to an FOSS platform.  That's just
my personal opinion though - others really don't want to touch it at
all, and I can't fault them too much since it is contrary to our
social contract.  I'm a pragmatist, but I am charged with helping to
uphold the social contract as a Trustee, and right now there is no
official FOSS long-term solution.

On the list of threats to the org though, I think that getting our
main repository onto git in the first place is a higher priority than
adopting tools like Gerrit/Github/etc.  Right now most of what is left
on that project rests on infra, so I don't want to beat up on them
over not wanting to take on Java/etc.

Rich