[collectd] On submitting patches and bugs

[Florian Forster]

Hi Johan,

On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 09:29:14AM +1100, Johan Bergström wrote:
> I'm feeling a bit split up about using gerrit, the mailing list,
> mantis and irc. I think the mailing list is a good way of getting a
> discussion going, but would prefer using something "closer" to git for
> ease of use. Gerrit is one way – but another way would be using github
> for this.

I agree – I'm not happy about the diversity either.

Gerrit is a nice idea, but the implementation sucks (you need to change
/ amend your current commit rather than having a feature branch). The UI
is probably the worst web thing I've ever seen, and I've seen
SourceForge. Last but not least, the interaction with Gerrit is a
nightmare, even for people who know Git by heart.


> For the record; I'm not out to open a discussion about what
> site/software is superior, its only my opinion.

Well, I kind of am: I want to reduce the choices and I would like to
chose the best option of the ones we have ;) I don't want this to turn
into a pseudo-religious flame-war, though …

> It seems like the github mirror of the official repo –
> https://github.com/octo/collectd – is accepting pull requests.

FYI, there is a "more official" repository now:

  https://github.com/collectd/collectd

I'd prefer if people would send pull requests for this repository in the
future.

Currently the repository on git.verplant.org is the canonical repository
and changes are pushed to collectd/collectd and octo/collectd hourly.
However, I'm using git.verplant.org for feature branches, too, so using
the collectd/collectd mirror on GitHub will give you a "cleaner"
repository.

I'm accepting pull requests and the feature is nice. It's not without
problems, but compared to the nightmare that is Gerrit these are really
minor:

  - The repository owner (the one who's supposed to accept the pull
    request) can't change the target branch himself. I usually get PRs
    for the "master" branch but want to merge bug fixes into one of the
    version-tracking branches.

  - If a change can be merged via Fast Forward, I would prefer *not*
    having a "merge commit". I.e. I'd like to have git-merge's "--no-ff"
    option for GitHub's PRs.

> I understand the downsides of putting these things onto a commercial
> site, but think its a fair tradeoff (should you mirror the git repo
> locally) for ease of use and public visibility.

Well, GitHub has been "nice" to free software projects so far and I
don't see a risk of lock-in. If they change their policy or a better
option arises, we can easily

Let's see what others think :)

Best regards,
—octo
-- 
Florian octo Forster
Hacker in training
GnuPG: 0x0C705A15
http://octo.it/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.verplant.org/pipermail/collectd/attachments/20120202/23f70df4/attachment.pgp>