1 |
On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 16:08 +0200, Marius Brehler wrote: |
2 |
> Hi everybody, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On 05/24/2017 09:17 AM, Guilherme Amadio wrote: |
5 |
> > Hi David, |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:11:03AM +0200, David Seifert wrote: |
8 |
> > > Dear users of the sci overlay, |
9 |
> > > we've recently rearranged the git setup. The current sci setup is |
10 |
> > > now |
11 |
> > > exactly like the main tree setup, namely: |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > 1. The authoritative repo is the one hosted by infra |
14 |
> > > (git://anongit.gentoo.org/proj/sci.git) |
15 |
> > > 2. All commits to the sci repo will be synced over to Github |
16 |
> > > automatically, in ONE DIRECTION only. This means all the dual |
17 |
> > > HEAD |
18 |
> > > merging is obsolete now. |
19 |
> > > 3. The Github repo is now meant as a (friendly) interface to |
20 |
> > > potential |
21 |
> > > contributors. |
22 |
> > > 4. As a new QA policy, merge commits in the overlay are banned |
23 |
> > > now. The |
24 |
> > > sci overlay has much lower contention than the main repository, |
25 |
> > > such |
26 |
> > > that you can realistically always avoid merge commits, even for |
27 |
> > > large |
28 |
> > > batches of commits. This will require you to rebase your commits |
29 |
> > > on top |
30 |
> > > of remote: |
31 |
> > > |
32 |
> > > git pull --rebase=preserve |
33 |
> > > |
34 |
> > > I will likely further tighten the QA standards of the repository, |
35 |
> > > due |
36 |
> > > to a history of poor COMMITMSGs and other QA violations. This is |
37 |
> > > supposed to be a testing ground for the main repo, where plans |
38 |
> > > are to |
39 |
> > > also introduce such QA measures. |
40 |
> > > |
41 |
> > > Furthermore, I am considering requiring full GPG-signed commits |
42 |
> > > for the |
43 |
> > > overlay, and for this I would like to get some input. I believe |
44 |
> > > this |
45 |
> > > prepares contributors for eventually joining Gentoo. For low- |
46 |
> > > volume |
47 |
> > > contributors not wanting to join, we can always merge pull |
48 |
> > > requests |
49 |
> > > from Github. Ideas? Are you opposed to this? |
50 |
> > |
51 |
> > I welcome all these changes. If we can help in educating people on |
52 |
> > the |
53 |
> > more tricky things, like signing with a GPG key, even better. I |
54 |
> > have |
55 |
> > some ebuilds I use personally now that I will try to add in the |
56 |
> > next |
57 |
> > few days to the overlay. |
58 |
> > |
59 |
> > That said, once we reach good enough quality of ebuilds in the |
60 |
> > overlay, |
61 |
> > we should start just moving them to the main tree. Gentoo is used |
62 |
> > by |
63 |
> > quite a few physicists (myself included) and other scientists, so |
64 |
> > eliminating the need for an extra overlay would be nice. I remember |
65 |
> > having problems with things like blas/atlas and eselect due to |
66 |
> > divergences with the main tree in not so distant past. Also, using |
67 |
> > overlays with prefix is not always a seamless experience. |
68 |
> > |
69 |
> > I'm not saying the overlay should go away, but just be a staging |
70 |
> > area |
71 |
> > for scientific packages before they land on the main tree. What are |
72 |
> > your |
73 |
> > thoughts on this? |
74 |
> > |
75 |
> > Cheers, |
76 |
> > —Guilherme |
77 |
> > |
78 |
> |
79 |
> I actually agree and support the idea. However, I recently noticed |
80 |
> that |
81 |
> I no longer have the permission to close issues in github. Is it |
82 |
> possible to get those for sci again? |
83 |
> Before the announcement, I was using git.gentoo.org:proj/sci.git, for |
84 |
> which I have sufficient rights. Is there any difference, or rather |
85 |
> should I switch over to anongit.gentoo.org/proj/sci.git? |
86 |
> Best Regards |
87 |
> |
88 |
> Marius |
89 |
|
90 |
Which brings me to the next point - that thing shouldn't even be there. |
91 |
The Github issue tracker was used in ancient days, and I'd much rather |
92 |
people use bugzie than having 3 divergent issue trackers. I will add |
93 |
you in the mean time. |