Ah, I see what you mean now. But then you can rebase yourself in master right? And the build time would be exactly the same no?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org
Local Time: May 17, 2017 2:03 PM
UTC Time: May 17, 2017 12:03 PM
From: jehan marmottard gmail com
To: Carlos Soriano <csoriano protonmail com>
desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
Hi,
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Carlos Soriano <csoriano protonmail com> wrote:
> So the main problem is autotools rebuilds everything when switching
> branches, even if the files didn't change?
> That's sounds very strange, autotools builds based on mtime of the files,
> and I checked this personally.
Yes that's how autotools works.
> Are you sure of the reason of this situation? Could it be because the branch
> is not rebased properly on top of the master branch (and the UI in GitLab
> will say so, so the contributor will need to do it because otherwise there
> is no fast forward merge anyway)?
As I said in the email you answer, that's the most obvious reason, yes. :-)
Quoting myself:
> actually for good reasons sometimes; for instance often the branch would be based on older commits than master HEAD
The contributor will usually work on master and when one pushes, it
would be usually properly rebased (though while one worked, there
would usually be commits). Then patches are rarely immediately
reviewed the next few minutes! It may be days until we make time to do
so. You cannot ask a contributor to rebase the branch constantly and
immediately at the second when you want to review (they also have
their own schedules and not at our orders!). Even more if you review
it in several steps accross several days (which could happen for
complicated patch).
So no, we are usually the ones to rebase the contributor's branch.
That means, when we do rebase, it's too late. We already checked out
the branch, file timestamps changed and are not going to be reverted.
So the next `make` will be long, even if we rebased.
GIMP has commits nearly every day, and very often many commits a day.
You cannot expect the contributor branches to be always up to date
with master. They will always be at least a few commits late. And even
more since we don't review straight away.
Jehan
> Best regards,
> Carlos Soriano
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org
> Local Time: May 17, 2017 1:41 PM
> UTC Time: May 17, 2017 11:41 AM
> From: jehan marmottard gmail com
> To: Carlos Soriano <csoriano protonmail com>
> desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Carlos Soriano <csoriano protonmail com>
> wrote:
>> Hey Jehan,
>>
>> Knowing that core contributors like you and GIMP maintainers will have
>> access to the repo, are the sporadic contributions still many enough
>> enough
>
> Yes we still have regular one-time contributions. If anything, we are
> the ones who don't review them fast enough, though we have been
> getting better now and try to review external patches in a more timely
> fashion.
>
>> for fetching a remote being inconvenient? Is it because it takes
>> considerably more time to fetch a repo than download and applying a patch?
>
> It does take more time indeed. But the most annoying part is having to
> switch branches. When you checkout another branch, autotools gets
> confused and will re-build much more than what it should have if I
> just applied the patch (actually for good reasons sometimes; for
> instance often the branch would be based on older commits than master
> HEAD). So you transform a 10-second builds into a 10-minute build
> (this is *not* exageration; if the patch is on a plugin or even on
> most of the core for instance, the rebuild will be very quick; but if
> it starts rebuilding libgimp*, then we are doomed!).
> When it's a separate remote, I even wonder if git will still make the
> link between the 2 remotes? Will it try to rebuild everything from
> scratch? This would be absolutely terrible.
>
> What I would do to test a patch is:
> - wget
> - git apply (this won't make a commit so I won't push it by mistake)
> - test it. If it looks good…
> - git checkout -- .
> - git am
> - Optionally fix minor stuff and amend, edit the commit message if needed.
> - git push
>
> If the patch looks really simple and obviously good from the basic
> visual review, I would just ignore the `git apply` steps. Just git am,
> test, push. This can all be done in 15 minutes. In these 15 minutes,
> the procedure and rebuild could take just 2 or 3 minutes; the 10+
> additional minutes are because I do thorough tests even for small
> patches.
>
> If I am forced to checkout another branch, the procedure + build would
> be suddenly extremely long and boring.
>
> Now I don't say that there is no alternative. I guess what I would do
> is: fetch the remote (don't checkout it), then cherry-pick only the
> commit. This way, I avoid a stupid rebuild of useless stuff. It's
> still not as good as previously since it will still take longer, and I
> lose the `git apply` step, which is the step which allows me to work
> and test patches on master without fearing making a stupid push
> mistake. Now here too there are workarounds, like I could git reset
> immediately to get rid of the commit (still keeping the code), but
> that makes a lot of workarounds now! ;P
>
> So yeah, that's not as bright and simple as it could be.
>
> Jehan
>
>> Cheers,
>> Carlos Soriano
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org
>> Local Time: May 17, 2017 12:47 PM
>> UTC Time: May 17, 2017 10:47 AM
>> From: jehan marmottard gmail com
>> To: Tristan Van Berkom <tristan vanberkom codethink co uk>,
>> desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Sébastien Wilmet <swilmet gnome org>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:15:51PM +0900, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>>>> I don't share your optimism about gitlab bug tracking, nor do I share
>>>> in the mentioned frustration with bugzilla.
>>>
>>> Me too, I like bugzilla (but not for doing code reviews).
>>>
>>> What would be the pain points if GitLab is used only for git and code
>>> reviews, and we keep bugzilla for the bug tracker? Have you considered
>>> that option?
>>>
>>> We would loose automatic links between bug tracker tickets and pull
>>> requests. When a pull request is merged, we would need to close manually
>>> the bugzilla ticket if everything is done. And when someone requests a
>>> pull, the person would need to add a comment manually on bugzilla so
>>> that other people know that the bug is being worked on.
>>>
>>> Mmh I think that's not practical if the links must be done manually.
>>>
>>> Maintaining the bugzilla instance would also require sysadmin time, and
>>> development efforts to rebase the patches to new bugzilla versions.
>>>
>>> I don't know, I'm excited about the idea to use a similar contribution
>>> workflow as in GitHub, but less excited about having a bug tracker
>>> similar to the GitHub one. (I've never used GitLab, but I'm familiar
>>> with GitHub, and after seeing some screenshots it seems that the GitLab
>>> bug tracker is similar to GitHub's).
>>
>> I like bugzilla too and guess it probably does more than github/lab
>> bug trackers. But I also know there are annoying parts. Like someone
>> noted that searching projects in the long list of GNOME projects is
>> terrible experience (I even have a browser keyword so that I don't
>> have to do this anymore, because it was so annoying; but obviously new
>> contributors would not have such shortcuts).
>>
>> Also the fact that the reports actually have less options is not bad
>> IMO. One gets lost in all these bz options. Simplicity is good
>> sometimes. :-)
>> gitlab has cool features too, like it's much easier to mention someone
>> to have them take a look at a report, for instance.
>> And finally, as you say, code review is much better. I like that you
>> can annotate line per line (easier for the reviewee in particular to
>> understand our review).
>>
>> Bottom line: I definitely don't think we should keep both bz and
>> gitlab in the end.
>>
>> The only thing I am annoyed at is this forking workflow. Both as a
>> contributor, and as a code committer/reviewer. Having to fetch a new
>> remote for every single-commit contribution out there is terrible.
>>
>> Jehan
>>
>>> --
>>> Sébastien
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> desktop-devel-list mailing list
>>> desktop-devel-list gnome org
>>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ZeMarmot open animation film
>> http://film.zemarmot.net
>> Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot
>> Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot
>> _______________________________________________
>> desktop-devel-list mailing list
>> desktop-devel-list gnome org
>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ZeMarmot open animation film
> http://film.zemarmot.net
> Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot
> Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
>
--
ZeMarmot open animation film
http://film.zemarmot.net
Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot
Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
