From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-91656-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBFDC1382C5
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 03:25:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53BF6E0961;
Wed, 27 May 2020 03:25:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2154EE0953
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 03:25:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id y13so4245830eju.2
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 20:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gentoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=dMqMJC2sRmeQaY5e4866ZWnox57uAr+3Cc0ygDewuME=;
b=QTNS7qXKCDPnzekmbav0+39ZcB/GSoZymlhQrOwdHlbyR24cXFWFrsgYr99MKV2x7I
SaIYkD+X3CxxDbaZv2y5igcWUCmTW6dK4bRuaMAuyc9L8Ndy8hFkb3BKO7cow0fOWu2A
r4U0gbYePXPZ06oVl0ck/7xEJBUqRcxSLdUGRBg4G39uQu4pb54sbyNNrh1/a/uxuKiZ
dAJ5wADaDiyg+YHF9Ml5qOMqOA9zY4bUmJF0Kk7BEMFU+peNdVwE8FwqbXHKlXszGUGl
E8uDRcjV8N4j80WrdmO514KZEwTaofF6UOdPlViplQ9lZqSG1hgVYewpD2gECS/D6tWv
B+ig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=dMqMJC2sRmeQaY5e4866ZWnox57uAr+3Cc0ygDewuME=;
b=teSQRlcQxqpT6SUJNPkO1WVHGzeMiuAKjpLOjYLKecP846mnm8vN6ebgr3pL051VcK
wLG7S1av6CtdE+vbsdq5RhZqwJwPKGQfQQpHgCR0xs0s+lvWrMGOFLf46NYHE2UIee2B
swhcr6BxRsnbjmdS2FYSH93lR7/Vwd7uWaWliRPUeFQzeRKRMc8+M0i8jQIhoViml3s9
LBmI9KFB7E9gSLITBo8o49XyHVgDv84h/UJGOWNVxnCTjcnUXbXmcY1oX2qokZuou8qp
e49BNoEUQLg9NMnuVars1Xjtp8RMfLW2SQdxqatFnobshRlS0sErFHVn9JFooNXJ+nHZ
XTkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531oP0ZtPAM32xOKDhiJ0xQVDGWD6jf+WT1FS/HFxwsIAkhVO1O+
7WMLMDmifdn4AGp2jev6j5VG/jO6HUFPq6wOKHKBRMORuPk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyuqAWrXdgWRhtr98EsEkTXVH1GnLlbZWAP8Wxk8aYWAt2vrgRuKz2uJRSEIUqu53BIp8vc7JSnsx6Lpp61sBQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:57c5:: with SMTP id u5mr3796346ejr.419.1590549907078;
Tue, 26 May 2020 20:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 20:24:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAr7Pr-AU42K2k5vP34cXRtEpp-ED1vKyCBoCRXDZ7oNvQBLdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Value of Continuous integration vs Code Review / Pull Requests
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000359f7905a698c276"
X-Archives-Salt: 9d89d707-047a-4451-8df1-e8833c98beb3
X-Archives-Hash: 516962fbfea5d60dd24ded8b12958584
--000000000000359f7905a698c276
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
The TL;DR is that a crack team of infra-folks[0] have been putting together
demos of CI services and things like gitlab / gitea / gerrit and so on.
Some of these come in combined (e.g. gitlab offers repo hosting, code
review / pull reqs, CI services, and deploy services.) Some of these are
piecemeal (e.g. gerrit has code review, zuul has CI) and gitea offers
repo-hosting but CI is separate (e.g. drone.)
On the infra-side, I think we are pretty happy with repo-hosting (gitolite)
and repo-serving (gitweb). We are missing a CI piece and a pull-request
piece. Most of the users using PRs use either a gitlab or github mirror.
I think the value of CI is pretty obvious to me (and I see tons of use
cases in Infra.) We could easily build CI into our current repository
solution (e.g. gitolite.) However gitolite doesn't really support PRs in a
uniform way and so CI is mostly for submitted code; similar to the existing
::gentoo repo CI offered by mgorny.
If we build a code review solution (like gitea / gerrit) would people use
it? Would you use it if you couldn't merge (because the code review
solution can't gpg sign your commits or merges) so a tool like the existing
pram tool would be needed to merge?
-A
[0] Mostly arzano, if I'm honest. I am just the point-y haired manager in
this effort.
--000000000000359f7905a698c276
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">The TL;DR is that a crack team of infra-folks[0] have been=
putting together demos of CI services and things like gitlab / gitea / ger=
rit and so on.<div><br></div><div>Some of these come in combined (e.g. gitl=
ab offers repo hosting, code review / pull reqs, CI services, and deploy se=
rvices.) Some of these are piecemeal (e.g. gerrit has code review, zuul has=
CI) and gitea offers repo-hosting but CI is separate (e.g. drone.)</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>On the infra-side, I think we are pretty happy with repo-=
hosting (gitolite) and repo-serving (gitweb). We are missing a CI piece and=
a pull-request piece. Most of the users using PRs use either a gitlab or g=
ithub mirror.</div><div><br></div><div>I think the value of CI is pretty ob=
vious to me (and I see tons of use cases in Infra.) We could easily build C=
I into our current repository solution (e.g. gitolite.) However gitolite do=
esn't really support PRs in a uniform way and so CI is mostly for submi=
tted code; similar to the existing ::gentoo repo CI offered by mgorny.</div=
><div><br></div><div>If we build a code review solution (like gitea / gerri=
t) would people use it? Would you use it if you couldn't merge (because=
the code review solution can't gpg sign your commits or merges) so a t=
ool like the existing pram tool would be needed to merge?</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>-A</div><div><br></div><div>[0] Mostly arzano, if I'm honest. I=
am just the point-y haired manager in this effort.</div></div>
--000000000000359f7905a698c276--