| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Ian Delaney <idella4@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:29:51 -0400 |
| 3 |
> "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> You become dependent in that discussions about a bug or patch are now |
| 6 |
>> on github and if that goes away you loose it. Therefore we depend on |
| 7 |
>> github to keep that history for us and that history is as important |
| 8 |
>> as the fix itself. Saying that you don't have to use github doesn't |
| 9 |
>> fix this unless that history is mirrored on our bugzilla. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The proposal is to mirror github pull requests on bugzilla. So, I'm |
| 12 |
not really sure I understand your objection. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Today work is done in github and isn't mirrored to bugzilla. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The proposal is to start mirroring some of that work on bugzilla. How |
| 17 |
does this make us more dependent on proprietary tools? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Nobody is proposing that anybody should have to look at github. They |
| 20 |
can just pretend that it doesn't exist. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> As for rage quitting an issue, are you sure that watering down the |
| 24 |
>> Social Contract won't cause other kinds of quitting? This issue is |
| 25 |
>> above such theatrics. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm not sure I follow your argument. My whole point was to quit the |
| 28 |
theatrics. I'm not impressed by people threatening to ragequit. I'd |
| 29 |
think that you'd probably agree on that front but perhaps we're |
| 30 |
misunderstanding each other. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Are developers going to quit because other developers are using |
| 33 |
github? Wouldn't that be a bit like quitting because somebody else is |
| 34 |
using a proprietary text editor to edit their ebuilds? Or quitting on |
| 35 |
openrc development because somebody else is maintaining systemd and we |
| 36 |
didn't ban that from the tree? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
The proposal is to open bugs on bugzilla when pull requests are |
| 39 |
submitted on github. I'm not sure how that is worse than not opening |
| 40 |
bug requests on bugzilla when pull requests are submitted on github. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> and so on and so forth. Sorry but my head is spinning. If the Council |
| 43 |
> is to do anything on this issue it seems it needs to address the |
| 44 |
> basics. Does github and its pull requests undermine or violate the |
| 45 |
> Social contract or not? |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Does it matter? The Council hasn't been asked whether developers can |
| 48 |
use github. They're already using github, and we can no more prevent |
| 49 |
them from using it than we can prevent them from using emacs to do |
| 50 |
their work. There is no way to distinguish in our repo from a commit |
| 51 |
that started its life on github from one that did not. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
We don't force developers to use bugzilla today, so I'm not sure why |
| 54 |
we'd start forcing them to use github (or not) tomorrow. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> Clearly it's a corner stone to the fabric of |
| 57 |
> this dilemma. High profile devs on both sides are arguing yay and ney. |
| 58 |
> Dammit this has split gentoo community like I haven't seen before. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
This is probably one of less contentious issues I've seen just in my |
| 61 |
tenure on the Council, which hasn't been all that long. I'm not |
| 62 |
suggesting that it isn't controversial, but rather that it seems no |
| 63 |
worse than many issues that have come up. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Are lots of devs planning on forking Gentoo because lots of other devs |
| 66 |
are using github? Maybe I'm just not paying attention to the same |
| 67 |
conversations. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
Rich |
Archives