Re: [boost] [git] Why are we using Github (was: The any library does not pull cleanly because of a forced update on develop and master)

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Why are we using Github (was: The any library does not pull cleanly because of a forced update on develop and master)
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-18 07:11:10

On 18 December 2013 09:26, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 18.12.2013 13:21, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>> On 18 December 2013 07:55, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 12.12.2013 02:19, Cox, Michael wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Which brings me to a question I've been wanting to get answered:  why
>>>> was
>>>> Github chosen in the first place?  I know it's the 900-lb gorilla in
>>>> public
>>>> git repository hosts, but I think Bitbucket allows so much more
>>>> flexibility
>>>> in configuring your repositories:
>>>>
>>>>      - Individual branches and wild-card refs can be configured with who is
>>>>      allowed to commit (which can be a group).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another problem with github model is that it promotes this
>>> fork-and-pull-request
>>> model, which then creates a history where every second commit is 'merged
>>> pull request N', which is not very useful.
>>
>>
>> IMHO, we've talked about it on IRC the other day, it may be useful
>> as it helps to find out where things come from.
>> A 'plain' contributed commit does not always carry useful information
>> i.e. bug number it fixes.
>> So, the merge commit is a chance to amend that.
>
>
> I assume we're gonna follow proper commit message guidelines, line here:
>
>         http://git-scm.com/book/ch5-2.html
>
> so the bug being fixed is part of the commit message. (If not, the commit
> is rejected).

OK, that is good indeed.

>> Plus, it indicates important detail: *who* let the contribution into
>> the codebase.
>
>
> You don't need pull requests for that, see:
>
>
> https://github.com/boostorg/build/commit/5ce453de47ba732f5a88236f302370d7bbafce18
>
> Git has separate information about committer and author, and github displays
> that.

Yes, that's right, my comment above was lazily expressed.
I meant, *who* as there is link to Pull Request where complete cycle
of review/updating commit/review is preserved.

I know Boost allows use of PRs [1], but not sure if it allows use of
corresponding
features at GitHub for code reviews, etc.

[1] https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/StartModPatchAndPullReq

>>> On the other hand, many other projects are using gerrit,
>>> where contributors clone locally, made changes and then push to a special
>>> magic ref on a server, which creates online review. Contributors of
>>> course can
>>> share their changes by pushing them to other repositories, but in the
>>> end, you end
>>> up with a clean logical patches to the official repository.
>>
>>
>> I have been a tiny contributor/lurker to Qt/Qt Creator, and from a
>> contributor POV,
>> their Gerrit system is a huge obstacle for ad-hoc or occasional
>> contributors.
>> Setting up is not easy, learning curve about the whole development
>> workflow is quite steep,
>> and the information is very distributed (no (auto)links between gerrit
>> and their bug reports).
>> For me, it is difficult to simply observe what is happening in the
>> Qt/Qt Creator projects.
>
>
> I don't recall my pain setting up Gerrit for Eclipse. But they do have some
> kind of cross-linking.

I guess it's matter of how Git/Gerrit/bug tracker is set up to play together.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz  Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net