Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Cc: Sam James <sam@g.o>, Gentoo Council <council@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items for upcoming council meeting (2022-05-08)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 13:13:37
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items for upcoming council meeting (2022-05-08) by Mike Gilbert
1 On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 10:07 PM Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:08 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
4 > >
5 > > Since commits to the main repo without the signoff are going to get
6 > > rejected anyway, if we decide to go ahead with this would it make
7 > > sense to just have it abort by default if the config item or command
8 > > line parameter is missing?
9 > >
10 > > If a user really wants to commit without a signoff they can just set
11 > > --signoff=false, or the equivalent in the config file.
12 > >
13 > > Basically make it a non-optional parameter.
14 > >
15 >
16 > I think aborting is a bit extreme.
17 >
19 It isn't meant to be punitive - it is meant to save the user rework.
21 I get that you can also use it in overlays, but I suspect that 95% of
22 people who commit to overlays also end up committing or submitting PRs
23 to the Gentoo repo, and that means that missing a signoff is going to
24 cause them issues.
26 So you can either let the operation go through with a 95% chance that
27 it is wrong, then inform the user there is a 95% chance that they did
28 the wrong thing and they should go rebase their commit and fix it. Or
29 you can just abort and ask them to confirm they really want to do what
30 they're doing by adding a simple command line option, which just
31 involves hitting the up arrow and adding it.
33 > Maybe a warning for a few releases, similar to how git has handled
34 > behavior changes.
36 That's great for the existing Gentoo dev who is transitioning, but not
37 the new contributor or dev who ends up finding out about their mistake
38 when they go to push a commit, or have their PR rejected for a missing
39 signoff.
41 This issue seems likely to hit almost every new user of the tool for
42 the indefinite future. It is much easier to avoid the error than to
43 go back and fix it.
45 It isn't going to bother me personally one way or another since I
46 already added this to my config file, so it doesn't matter to me all
47 that much. It just seems like not defaulting to shooting yourself in
48 the foot is a reasonable choice. If the user wants to add the option
49 and turn it off then they can still do commits without signoffs if
50 they don't want to contaminate their repo with harmless headers.
52 Besides, the whole argument for making this not default to signing
53 everything is that signing should be a deliberate choice. In that
54 case, shouldn't NOT signing ALSO be a deliberate choice?
56 --
57 Rich