[RFC] time to move to github?

Trevor Vaughan tvaughan at onyxpoint.com
Wed Apr 9 13:08:13 UTC 2014


Absolutely!

So, patch reviews are made easier by the following:

GitHub

1) Syntax highlighting
2) Inline commenting that persists over time
3) Immediate tracing of tickets to code via hashtags
4) Notification of individuals and groups via directed responses (@)
5) Easy raw file downloads

Gerrit

1) Syntax highlighting
2) Inline commenting that persists over time
3) Forced clean history based on Gerrit rules
4) Complete tracking of revision history (GitHub doesn't give you this)
5) Ability to restore abandoned changes if necessary
6) Authoritative, uncorruptable (unless you allow direct pushing)
repository.

If I remember correctly, FedoraHosted will not use any product not packaged
with RHEL/Fedora and Gerrit proved to be too difficult to package for
whatever reason.

There is another Gerrit-like system that the FedoraHosted systems can use
but I didn't find it to be as powerful as Gerrit when I last tried to use
it.

Thanks,

Trevor


On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hello Trevor,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Trevor Vaughan"
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 2:12:52 AM
> >
> > Honestly +1 here.
> >
> > I have pretty much all of my repos hosted under Github and their patch
> and
> > review process is *easy*
>
> Can you be more specific what makes that patch review process easy?
> Anything
> else behind having the patch review handled via Gerrit?
>
> > particularly when combined with the new Gerrit
> > system that's free for FOSS projects.
>
> So would just request Gerrit instance for SSG project via the Fedora
> infrastructure
> solve our obstacles? [*]
>
> Thank you && Regards, Jan.
> --
> Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Technologies Team
>
> [*] You to understand I am not against moving to GitHub. Just trying to
> identify
>     the difference / advantages / improvements, and if some of them would
> be
>     doable without the move to GitHub (less requirements for the time /
> resources
>     wrt to actions related with the move)
>
> >
> > Trevor
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Ronald < mini.pelle at gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > from a personal perspective, as a github users (read biased opinion),
> I've
> > been refrained from contributing and publishing diffs because:
> > - the process of patch approval was not clear,
> > - communication around a patch is made difficult by mail (which are
> already
> > follinwg throughout the days)
> > - current open issues are not listed and cannot be discussed by the
> community
> > (to propose patch for instance)
> >
> > I have the feeling that a move to github would make lots of things clear
> for
> > global collaboration. Although, the fact that the project is hosted at
> > fedora is a good quality stamp/branding :)
> >
> > my two cents.
> >
> > Ronald
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Shawn Wells < shawn at redhat.com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/8/14, 10:16 AM, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, what happened with this in the end?
> >
> > I just noticed a few more suggestions that Github-style pull requests
> would
> > be really useful.
> >
> > There were valid opinions expressed for both staying on FedoraHosted and
> > migrating to GitHub. So, effectively, a stalemate.
> >
> > The SSG community has grown amazingly -- both in contributors and usage
> --
> > and because of this success Red Hat is preparing to ship SSG in future
> > versions of RHEL [1]. This exacerbates the need for a manageable
> ticketing
> > system with easy patch submission as very shortly every RHEL installation
> > will have a copy of SSG. FedoraHosted simply wasn't designed to include
> the
> > same tooling and developer ecosystem as afforded on GitHub (and that's
> NOT a
> > ding against it's designers!).
> >
> > The community is a coalition of the willing. Our shared purpose drives
> the
> > community, and I strongly feel the need to build out tools that will
> allow
> > us to scale. I'm concerned -- likely overly so -- at how to prepare for a
> > wave of interest once we begin shipping in RHEL.
> >
> > With that said, who am I to *mandate* the migration to GitHub? Admittedly
> > part of me wants to just go ahead and do it, however that could come at
> > making a non-trivial amount of people (esp. committers, who would be
> > effected by the change) feel alienated/ignored. Certainly we can't make
> > everyone happy all the time, though.
> >
> > Thoughts would be *most* welcome.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ show_bug.cgi?id=1038655
> >
> >
> > ______________________________ _________________
> > scap-security-guide mailing list
> > scap-security-guide at lists. fedorahosted.org
> > https://lists.fedorahosted. org/mailman/listinfo/scap- security-guide
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > scap-security-guide mailing list
> > scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Trevor Vaughan
> > Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
> > (410) 541-6699
> > tvaughan at onyxpoint.com
> >
> > -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > scap-security-guide mailing list
> > scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
> >
>



-- 
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699
tvaughan at onyxpoint.com

-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/scap-security-guide/attachments/20140409/60a82546/attachment.html>


More information about the scap-security-guide mailing list