contribution process

[Gilles Moris]

Le 03/07/2014 07:22, Steve Barnes a écrit :
> On 02/07/14 23:53, Angel Ezquerra wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Augie Fackler<raf at durin42.com>  wrote:
>>> On Jul 2, 2014, at 3:15 PM, cowwoc<cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Augie,
>>>>
>>>> I brought up this topic because someone brought it up off-list in response to my post. I have never attempted to contribute to hg (mostly because my lack of Python experience) but I can definitely see how (quoting Paul) "emailing patches is a crummy process".
>>> How? Please elaborate. I've been doing review-by-email for 6 or 7 _years_ as the sole way I've been involved with tools like Mercurial. I'd like specifics on how this is bad for potential contributors so I can have meaningful conversations on how to improve our contribution process for everyone.
>>>
>>> I'd really like to chase down /what/ about patches-by-email is perceived to be awful. Right now I'm only hearing that y'all hate it, but not WHY.
>> I don't find it awful, but I don't find it great either, so perhaps I
>> can comment on why I don't find it great (both as a contributor and as
>> a reviewer (the latter mostly on the TortoiseHg project)).
>>
>> In short, I use gmail, and gmail sucks when used as a patches-by-email
>> tool (it is otherwise a pretty great web based email tool, and that is
>> why I use it in the first place). How does gmail suck?
>>
>> - It sucks for keeping track of patch series, specially for resends
>> and new versions of series. Its threading code gets confused all the
>> time when you resend a new version of a series. Worse, it does not
>> always get confused in the same way. In particular, sometimes it will
>> group some of the emails within a series resend with their previous
>> versions but then it will not group the rest of the emails.
>> - It sucks for getting patches _into_ a local mercurial clone. I don't
>> know how you guys do it, but I manually select "show original" on
>> every email in the series, copy the patch part and then import it
>> using TortoiseHg's import from clipboard feature. This is incredibly
>> time consuming for large patch series (to the point that I rarely
>> check those out).
>> - It sucks for keeping track of which patches were reviewed and which have not.
>>
>> I suspect other web based tools will have similar issues. Perhaps
>> using a stand alone, local email client would solve these problems,
>> but I don't think it is reasonable to expect contributors to change
>> their preferred email tool.
>>
>> That being said, using patches-by-email does have some great features.
>> I love that I can use gmail's search to look for patches. I also like
>> the immediacy of the review process and how easy is to just make a
>> short in line comment on someone else's patch.
>>
>> How could this be improved? One thing that would be neat is that each
>> patch series had an associated pull link that one could use to pull
>> the whole series into a local mercurial repo.
>>
>> Also, I don't think that mercurial's problem is a lack of contributors
>> or features. IMHO if mercurial is somehow 'stagnating' it is only in
>> terms of popularity, and only compared to git (probably due to
>> git/github having reached a critical mass), not in terms of usefulness
>> or development.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Angel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mercurial mailing list
>> Mercurial at selenic.com
>> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
>>
>>
> Would it be possible to persuade mpm/Selenic to consider hosting a 
> copy of ReviewBoard <https://www.reviewboard.org> this would allow 
> contributors to submit their proposed changes with:
> hg postreview
> using the ReviewboardExtension.
>
> I have to admit that I have yet to use it in anger but it looks good 
> to me.
>
> Gadget/Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
We've been using Mercurial, postreview extension and ReviewBoard with 
email notifications for more than a couple years with success.
The only thing I could see problematic for the Mercurial team is the 
management of patch series, on which ReviewBoard is still working on.

Regards.
Gilles.


---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20140703/d63aa89a/attachment-0002.html>