Re: GNU GRUB maintenance

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On October 8, 2015 10:52:25 AM EDT, Andrei Borzenkov <address@hidden> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
><address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hello, all. I'm sorry for not being available to do enough
>maintenance
>> for GRUB in last time but I was overbooked. Yet there is a good news.
>At
>> Google there is a 20% project and GRUB has been approved as 20%
>project
>> for me. The goal is to have 2.02 released before the end of this
>year.
>> Other than the raw lack of time there is another issue which makes
>> maintenance difficult: inefficient VCS.
>
>VCS is actually OK. The project of size Linux kernel seems to work
>well using pull request e-mails. The disadvantages are
>
>- contributors must have repository available via Internet


That is quite easy nowadays. And you can always ask for signed tags if you are 
worried about repos being subverted.

>- contributors are trusted to actually submit pull request for branch
>that was reviewed


<blinks>

It is a disadvantage to trust people!?


>- it needs to be done locally and pushed


Or you can have different maintainers pushing the patches in if they are Acked 
or Reviewed.

Meaning the committee does not have to be the same person who reviews/acks it.

>
>>                                                       It requires me
>or someone with
>> privileges manually copy the patch. What other systems would be ok?
>It
>> obviously has to be a free software and hosted on free
>software-friendly
>> hosting. It also has to have an efficient 1-click merge (so that
>someone
>> with privileges can get any patch submitted to the system merged in
>> couple of clicks).
>>
>>

Clicks? That sounds like a GUI thing. And it sounds like you need to have an 
admin to set it up, patch it occasionally, deal with spammers, etc.

What is wrong with the old mechanism of emails.

>
>It does not like like we have much choice. If we speak about free
>external hosting, this is probably github, gerrithub, gitlab. I do not
>know if any of them is considered friendly enough by FSF.
>
>If we speak about self hosting, then it is probably gerrit and
>reviewboard (I wish we could join KDE reviewboard, but grub hardly can
>be called KDE application ... :) )
>
>I am not thrilled by github workflows. From what I could gather
>gerrithub looks more appealing, but would love to hear from someone
>who actually used both.
>
>One problem is that none of them apparently allows reviewing by
>E-Mail. This worked (and probably works, just I'm no more involved)
>quite well in KDE reviewboard. This means all review must be done via
>web. For me it is rather disadvantage. Also merged requests are
>removed, which means history and past discussions are no more present.
>Which again is better using e-mail review.

Aye!

>
>_______________________________________________
>Grub-devel mailing list
>address@hidden
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel