| 1 |
On 10/8/15 8:42 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:45:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
>> The second issue that may need Council's attention is developers' |
| 6 |
>> attitude towards pull request source via GitHub. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> One and a half month since enabling it, we already had almost 150 pull |
| 9 |
>> requests from Gentoo users (and a few Gentoo developers who use this as |
| 10 |
>> a collaboration tool). Sadly, some developers not only refuse to use |
| 11 |
>> GitHub (which is an acceptable choice) but also have very negative |
| 12 |
>> attitude towards users submitting pull requests and the developers |
| 13 |
>> helping with them. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> The point is, if we want users to submit pull requests, we should be |
| 16 |
>> handling them. Then we can't really agree on some developer refusing to |
| 17 |
>> look at the request, and requesting the user to re-send it some other, |
| 18 |
>> less convenient way. Or another developer just silently ignoring every |
| 19 |
>> request and rudely responding to pings. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Since the amount of work necessary to proxy between users |
| 22 |
>> and developers who refuse to use GitHub is huge, I have prepared |
| 23 |
>> a script that opens Bugzilla bugs for GitHub pull requests |
| 24 |
>> and bidirectionally copies comments between them, therefore allowing |
| 25 |
>> Gentoo developers to handle pull requests via Bugzilla at their |
| 26 |
>> convenience. However, it is currently waiting for review and approval |
| 27 |
>> by Robin before it will get deployed. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> But even then, I need to make sure the developers will actually use it |
| 30 |
>> politely. Developers can't really close those bugs 'because it's |
| 31 |
>> GitHub', or 'attach a patch', or 'duplicate of #nnnnnn' (because |
| 32 |
>> it's a synced bug, it can't be magically coerced into existing bug). |
| 33 |
>> In fact, I mailed bug-wranglers about this already but I got no reply. |
| 34 |
> I'd like to ask the Council to consider pros and cons of this issue |
| 35 |
> with extreme care. Benefits and dangers of the integration with the |
| 36 |
> proprietary GitHub service were discussed many times already, |
| 37 |
> starting from [1]. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> While the GitHub integration allows to receive a bit more |
| 40 |
> contributions, it contains long-term dangers of the Gentoo Social |
| 41 |
> Contract violation and loosing independence of the infrastructure |
| 42 |
> and the development workflow itself. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> I propose that we should draw a line which should not be crossed to |
| 45 |
> satisfy both the Social Contract and freedom of people to use |
| 46 |
> whatever tools they want, including GitHub. As a first approximation |
| 47 |
> I suggest the following: |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> All connections with external infrastructure should be done in a |
| 50 |
> such way, that in case this external infrastructure will instantly |
| 51 |
> and permanently disappear, we should not loss any valuable data |
| 52 |
> and metadata, including commits, commit history, discussions, |
| 53 |
> patches, issues, bug reports and so on. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Thanks for this language Andrew. It reflects my concerns and I can |
| 56 |
support it in the council. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> As far as I understand Mgorny's proposal, it implies that pull |
| 60 |
> request issues and patches will be mirrored on bugzilla, but not |
| 61 |
> patches themselves. In my opinion this is not acceptable, since |
| 62 |
> violates both the Social Contract (by dependence on propietary |
| 63 |
> metadata, such as GitHub issues (and pull request is a special type |
| 64 |
> of issue on GitHub)) and Bugzilla's policy of having all patches |
| 65 |
> attached to the Bugzilla. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
I'm hopeful that Michal will be able to figure out a technical solution. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
I have one situation where I wanted a user to post his patches to our |
| 70 |
bugzilla for discussions but he did not. As a result I was unable to |
| 71 |
discuss them on our bugzilla, nor commit them in their current state. I |
| 72 |
could have discussed them on github but I did not want to create a long |
| 73 |
discussion history there, since that's supposed to be on bugzilla. So |
| 74 |
now what? |
| 75 |
> |
| 76 |
> I honestly do not understand why developers should be forced to |
| 77 |
> violate the Social contract under the excuse of "being polite" to |
| 78 |
> GitHub contributors nor why such actions should be allowed at all. |
| 79 |
There may be a technical solution where we can mirror pull requests, |
| 80 |
bugs and patches on bugzilla. |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
As a side note, this approach to pushing through agendas by creating |
| 83 |
situations where its easier to accept a "solution" rather than reject it |
| 84 |
is not going to work in Gentoo. We have lots of smart people that see |
| 85 |
through this. If we wind up being "impolite" to our users, the blame |
| 86 |
belongs to those who created that situation in the first place, not to |
| 87 |
the council. The Social Contract is correct and I'm not going to |
| 88 |
support anything that violates it. |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
> |
| 91 |
> [1] |
| 92 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/27e8b99db6fcd2654fc2548a605f0b70 |
| 93 |
> |
| 94 |
> Best regards, |
| 95 |
> Andrew Savchenko |
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
|
| 98 |
-- |
| 99 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 100 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 101 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 102 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 103 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives