On 08.10.2015 21:34, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On October 8, 2015 10:52:25 AM EDT, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko >> <phco...@gmail.com> 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 takes too much effort to: a) Track if there are any unresolved issues b) It takes non-trivial amount of effort to commit once it's reviewed: you need to copy patch from mail client to git, do commit, copy description and so on c) No integration with continous testing systems
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
