From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1Zkp16-0004Pw-Jb for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:56:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43157) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkWZR-00084K-2K for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:14:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkWZN-0004gM-K6 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:14:44 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x244.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::244]:34747) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkWZN-0004gI-EX for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:14:41 -0400 Received: by wibgw2 with SMTP id gw2so1221844wib.1 for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 05:14:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=aRkquYgT6HWK2Qq8W6zLzeKdNybc2Bof+bwaXMgwuds=; b=WurtOfnDNunszxujAHx8zGmRRUa+5F3XbV7VFfw7HQfKnha2da0FudkShR9XK8RvsS TwdKwa4aIH8gAsbchhT0bPVK5/6OcvWREFizSWZsmZweOEFR1umXRQp4sbRUuWMp/dXT LpPxG3e5glVJc5MtLwr7HV3Q78s32k9/SmKBpe7ifDyqBnb2S0aJH9IY9WyTr5w0zsE8 G8sSVz94WNi/vSo43PnRddURPvPAIX4/rEA/KUfw+u4edqeZ1ib0P6K7VkCfI3/Oadc8 AZS428bPy5K3ilzzvL+MD/+RtmP6rAaI4Kd+mQiizeMLuCI1Gb81HHLR9893WZaS277t JmwQ== X-Received: by 10.180.93.131 with SMTP id cu3mr9803139wib.8.1444392880800; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 05:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.119.6.25] ([83.143.7.1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h8sm2535628wib.21.2015.10.09.05.14.39 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Oct 2015 05:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: GNU GRUB maintenance To: The development of GNU GRUB , Andrei Borzenkov References: <56158B2B.6040205@gmail.com> <0E11E6D6-2448-4F86-9720-63C115AD08FD@oracle.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Vladimir_'=cf=86-coder/phcoder'_Serbinenko?= Message-ID: <5617AFAF.5020406@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:14:39 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0E11E6D6-2448-4F86-9720-63C115AD08FD@oracle.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="l9UNg1NbfTVSc8q5wounKnCfEIV69CjAe" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::244 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 12:14:46 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --l9UNg1NbfTVSc8q5wounKnCfEIV69CjAe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08.10.2015 21:34, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On October 8, 2015 10:52:25 AM EDT, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbi= nenko >> 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 >=20 >=20 > That is quite easy nowadays. And you can always ask for signed tags if = you are worried about repos being subverted. >=20 >> - contributors are trusted to actually submit pull request for branch >> that was reviewed >=20 >=20 > >=20 > It is a disadvantage to trust people!? >=20 >=20 >> - it needs to be done locally and pushed >=20 >=20 > Or you can have different maintainers pushing the patches in if they ar= e Acked or Reviewed. >=20 > Meaning the committee does not have to be the same person who reviews/a= cks it. >=20 >> >>> 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). >>> >>> >=20 > Clicks? That sounds like a GUI thing. And it sounds like you need to ha= ve an admin to set it up, patch it occasionally, deal with spammers, etc.= >=20 > What is wrong with the old mechanism of emails. >=20 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 --l9UNg1NbfTVSc8q5wounKnCfEIV69CjAe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREKAAYFAlYXr68ACgkQmBXlbbo5nOuEVwEAjszQjyixbRJMAq8GbCJZO6LU SFKphSvFVWic2EDFNrMA/3nRAMo8aoE8aMvcF13EGDDhXgnWiiJLIei1k1IUvpK5 =3A9a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --l9UNg1NbfTVSc8q5wounKnCfEIV69CjAe--