[phobos] Push or pull?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Great! (1) sounds great. I won't have the time to read it soon, but I 
will and I encourage others to do so as well.

Andrei

On 2/4/11 8:36 AM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad wrote:
> I have started writing a guide now.  I'll hold off giving you the
> address until the bottom of this message, because I'd like you to read
> my comments on the following first. ;)
>
> In general, I would say that since we have chosen GitHub as the place to
> host our code, we are probably best off adapting the kind of workflow
> that GitHub encourages.
>
>
> On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 10:54 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Lars, you seem to know your way around the process. Do you think you
>> could put together a short document and a collection of scripts that
>> people can use? The workflows involved are:
>>
>> 1. I am done making a change and want to submit it for review.
>
> In GitHub, this is done by clicking "Pull Request".  It would of course
> be nice to be able to do this from the command line, and I'm pretty sure
> it is possible to make a short script that uses GitHub's API to do this.
> I'm going offline for the weekend, but I'll look into it next week.
>
>
>> 2. Reviewers gave feedback and I need to change my stuff and submit it
>> back for review. Preferably there would be an obvious connection between
>> the first and subsequent submissions.
>
>> From what I understand, this happens automatically.  When you make
> further commits to the branch from which you issued the pull request,
> the request is automatically updated with the changes.
>
>
>> 3. Reviewers are okay with my changes, I need to upload them.
>>
>> Ideally we'd have a means of enforcement, i.e. no code makes it that
>> didn't get "OK" at least from one reviewer. Also, even if one reviewer
>> gave "OK" another one could veto.
>>
>> We use a similar process at Facebook and it is extremely helpful.
>
> Russel suggested Gerrit, which seems to be exactly what you're looking
> for.  However, Gerrit is a Git server in its own right, and encourages a
> quite different workflow than GitHub.  In general, it seems Gerrit and
> GitHub don't play nice together:
>
>    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2451644/gerrit-with-github
>
> (Scott Chacon is one of the GitHub devs, by the way, so he should know.)
>
> Instead, I suggest we do one of the following two things:
>
> 1. Trust people not to commit anything unless it has been reviewed and
> OK'ed by at least two other team members.
>
> 2. Revoke everyone except Andrei's (and possibly one or two others')
> push privileges, and leave the job of integrating our changes to those
> select few.
>
> The latter is the "traditional" git way to do it, but it means more work
> for those chosen to be the integrators.  My vote goes to 1.
>
>
> Ok, now you can read my draft and comment on it.  Like I said, I'm going
> away for the weekend, so I probably won't be able to respond to any
> comments until Monday.
>
>    http://www.kyllingen.net/guide.html
>
>
> -Lars
>
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos