On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:44 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> If we are going to take this stance, should we consider removing all
> packages from the tree that have their upstream on github?
>
Considering that we allow even outright proprietary software in
portage which isn't distributed at all (
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:21:06AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
> >
> > You keep saying this. What do you mean?
>
> I'll clarify!
>
>
> > A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and
> > nothing els
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:08:21PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
> > sad to witness this once again.
> >
>
> I have mixed feelings for this very reason. The co
Alexander Berntsen posted on Mon, 13 May 2013 14:42:58 +0200 as excerpted:
> On 13/05/13 14:38, Greg KH wrote:
[ Reinserting original quote of Alexander Berntsen ]
>>> A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting
>>> and nothing else.
>>>
>> Linux does not use GitHub for anythin
On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:32:05 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 00:24:09 +0200
> Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/05/13 14:38, Greg KH wrote:
> Linux does not use GitHub for anything, but a lot of users do use
> the copy of the kernel tree on GitHub for their own development,
> which has nothing to do with the main Linux kernel developer
> workflow.
I misr
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:12:19AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
> You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including
> Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/05/13 09:40, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Don't know why it would be relevant. Also I intentionally didn't
> mention any names and wont do so on this list. Feel free to ask me
> in private if you have a good reason.
If a developer is behaving lik
On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:07:21 +0200
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 13/05/13 08:32, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> > Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day
> > writing a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/05/13 00:37, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> And for the record I have not had problems with messy merges when
>> commiting pull requests.
> As I wrote: It works fine but doesn't scale; the mess is that you
> always get a merge commit, which is usually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/05/13 08:32, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Once I was asked if I could look into a package. I spent a day
> writing a couple of ebuilds including fixing the build system of
> the target package. When I presented a first git-format-patch I was
> ask
On Mon, 13 May 2013 00:24:09 +0200
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > then github is also writing to repositories, and me
On 12 May 2013 20:34, Markos Chandras wrote:
[...]
> Besides, most fixes come from users (maybe not the actual patches but
> they spot most of the problems) so providing an easier way for them to
> contribute is preferred. Moreover, github provides other facilities
Is it easier because they alrea
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:24:09AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > then github is also writing to repositories, a
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> > is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> > then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
> > enforced for all external contributions. That does not sc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/05/13 00:21, Peter Stuge wrote:
> There is no problem if github is only used for hosting, but if it
> is the primary point of contact, or if pull requests are accepted,
> then github is also writing to repositories, and merge commits are
> enf
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> > [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
>
> You keep saying this. What do you mean?
I'll clarify!
> A lot of projects (including Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and
> nothing else. I don't see the problem.
There is no problem if github is only used for hosti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/05/13 20:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
> [GitHub] enforces some particular workflow
You keep saying this. What do you mean? A lot of projects (including
Linux) just use GitHub for hosting and nothing else. I don't see the
problem.
- --
Alexander
ale
On 13/05/2013 04:24, Peter Stuge wrote:
Michael Palimaka wrote:
I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
I agree, but if infra is not wi
Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
>> for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
>> and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
>
> I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something jav
Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> > > Another option that looks nice is GitLab.
> >
> > How does it work? The screenshots look exactly like github.
>
> Don't ask, just go for it!
That's not very helpful?
I'm happy to expand on my experience with Gerrit, and I'll gladly
answer specific questions if I c
On Sunday 12 of May 2013 19:20:03 Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Gerrit
> > ..
> > I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to
> > start messing with it personally.
>
> Go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad.
>
> Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > I
On 13/05/2013 03:20, Peter Stuge wrote:
I agree that Java is sucky, but I don't think that rejecting Gerrit
for that reason alone makes sense. Look at what the application does
and how it works, to determine if it fits the project or not.
I agree, but if infra is not willing to maintain something
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Gerrit
> ..
> I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just to
> start messing with it personally.
Go for it! It's a few steps to set up, but it's not too bad.
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> I believe Gerrit has been suggested before and rejected because it
> reli
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
> This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
> sad to witness this once again.
I've nothing at all against mirroring the repository at github, or
against accepting pull requests there. However, I think that we
shouldn't r
On 13/05/2013 02:08, Rich Freeman wrote:
Second, I think this really points to there being value for something
like Gerrit available on Gentoo, which might be the best of both
worlds. I've never used it myself but I'm tempted to install it just
to start messing with it personally. I'd be intere
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>
> This is the kind of policies that kill user contributions. I am very
> sad to witness this once again.
>
I have mixed feelings for this very reason. The concept of accepting
contributions on github is an EXCELLENT one. The problem i
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> However, the write access removed because of potential conflicts
>> between g.o.g.o and github. If you can guarantee me that people will
>> not mess things up and not commit only to one of the to remotes,
>> then we can enable write access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/12/2013 04:48 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>>> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to
>>> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo."
>
>>> Have I missed something? La
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Earlier you said: "Just to clarify, i never said I wanted to
>> deprecated the git.overlays.gentoo.org repo."
>> Have I missed something? Last time I looked, github's server
>> software wasn't open source. Why should we use non-free tools for
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Last time I looked, github's server software wasn't open source.
>> Why should we use non-free tools for a central piece of Gentoo
>> documentation?
> The last that I looked, the Verilog designs and other hardware
> schematics were not open source
Markos Chandras wrote:
> The repository is still accessible in http://git.overlays.gentoo.org
> and read-only access is still available. However, the write access
> removed because of potential conflicts between g.o.g.o and github.
> If you can guarantee me that people will not mess things up and n
On 05/12/2013 09:15 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your
>> local trees using the following command:
>
>> Developers: git remote set-url origin
>> g...@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/12/2013 02:15 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update
>> your local trees using the following command:
>
>> Developers: git remote set
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 12 May 2013 09:12:03 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2].
>
> No objections to mirroring it there, and accepting pull requests there.
> However, would an outright move be
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The devmanual git repository[1] moved to github[2]. Please update your
> local trees using the following command:
> Developers: git remote set-url origin
> g...@github.com:gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org
> Read-only: git remote set-url origin
> git
36 matches
Mail list logo
