maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] On the Maven PMC roles... (was [DISCUSS] Should the Maven PMC be an example of how we want the Maven Community to behave...)
Date Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:20:20 GMT
thank you Curtis: all the pointers you gave are of great value!

I perfectly understand your Githubs examples: pull requests + work to give 
pull requests most chances to be accepted
In fact, in our case, for somebody having commit privileges, using such pull 
requests isn't the first thing I would have thought, but yes, it is a good 
Review Then Commit tooling

For somebody with commit privileges, would you find any key difference with a 
branch on ASF Git + discussion on mailing list before merging into master?


For gerrit, now I see what it looks like: seems really more complex than 
GitHubs pull requests. Don't know when such tooling starts to be really useful


Thanks again for your pointers: today, I learned something useful, it's a good 
day
Notice I'm having holidays and won't be on the ML for 2 weeks: I won't be able 
to continue the discussion, even if really instructive

Regards,

Hervé

Le vendredi 2 août 2013 11:13:50 Curtis Rueden a écrit :
> Hi Herve,
> 
> > I didn't use gerrit nor have seen anybody using it. ... Is this pure
> > theory? a dream? a reality for a minority of experts, talking about it
> > loudly but no mere mortal can use it?
> 
> Google uses it (of course). For example, for Chromium:
> https://gerrit.chromium.org/
> Kitware uses it. ITK, VTK, etc.: http://review.source.kitware.com/
> I'm sure there are many others.
> 
> Personally my colleagues and I don't use it; we use GitHub's code review
> mechanism which is simple and effective. You can comment on any Pull
> Request, and on any line of any commit.
> 
> > I hear about it more and more often as an argument why it makes git
> > better than svn
> 
> It was not my goal to argue that "Gerrit makes Git better than SVN" but
> rather than good code review tools make code review *much* easier.
> 
> Git is better than SVN for many, many reasons that have nothing to do with
> code review tools. :-P
> 
> > yes, with git, you can: with git, so much things can be done. But once
> > again, I didn't see anybody do it, because it's a lot of work. And it
> > requires to be a git black belt.
> 
> As a programmer, revision control in one of your bread-and-butter tools.
> Shouldn't you be taking the time to become a VCS black belt? Doing so will
> save you loads of time in the long run, for the same reasons that becoming
> a command line master, or an IDE master, or a master of *any* effective
> productivity tool, will. Embrace Larry Wall's virtues of the programmer --
> laziness, impatience and hubris -- and always seek the better, faster path!
> Computers are different than other skill sets: a professional sprinter may
> be able to sprint 2x or 3x or even 5x faster than you, but a professional
> programmer can accomplish a task on a computer thousands or even millions
> of times faster than a neophyte... *if* the programmer has a thirst for
> knowledge and self-improvement.
> 
> </soapbox>
> 
> Anyway, yes, my colleagues and I *do* use Git in this way: work on topic
> branches, rewrite history to make review easier, and sometimes file Pull
> Requests on GitHub to specifically invite review for possibly disruptive
> changes.
> 
> I'm not really sure what to point you at here, other than the "Contribution
> Activity" section of my GitHub page:
> https://github.com/ctrueden
> Of course, it is changing all the time...
> 
> Regards,
> Curtis
> 
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr>wrote:
> > Le vendredi 2 août 2013 10:08:42 Curtis Rueden a écrit :
> > > True, and it is good to warn about this. However, ultimately I think Git
> > 
> > is
> > 
> > > a better choice (than SVN) because it often makes code review much
> > 
> > easier.
> > I didn't use gerrit nor have seen anybody using it. But I hear about it
> > more
> > and more often as an argument why it makes git better than svn (even if I
> > read
> > that gerrit is a fork of rietveld, which is the same for subversion: but
> > nobody even talks about it, don't know why).
> > Is this pure theory? a dream? a reality for a minority of experts, talking
> > about it loudly but no mere mortal can use it?
> > (intentional provocational tone to motivate people who know to show me the
> > direction to the light :) )
> > 
> > > If a new feature is properly developed on a topic branch with commits
> > > squashed, rewritten and organized as needed, the history can be laid out
> > 
> > in
> > 
> > > a very easy-to-understand manner: new features and bugfixes done in
> > > properly isolated commits, unit tests added immediately thereafter, etc.
> > 
> > yes, with git, you can: with git, so much things can be done.
> > But once again, I didn't see anybody do it, because it's a lot of work.
> > And it requires to be a git black belt.
> > For the moment, just making a rebase before merging a branch seems hard
> > for us
> > mere mortals.
> > 
> > > If
> > > a commit is too large or conflates many different changes, Git provides
> > 
> > the
> > 
> > > tools to split up that work for rereview.
> > > 
> > > Again, thanks for writing this.
> > 
> > +1
> > I like it too
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Hervé
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message