[xmonad] xmonad{,-contrib} on github

[Jochen Keil]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

On 27.08.2012 00:43, Michael Sloan wrote:
>> From: Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug
>> 26, 2012 at 3:18 AM It promotes sloppy quick patches and
>> committing to master and not learning to use git properly
>> resulting in multiple pull request for the same patch until they
>> get it or if they don't waste of the pull request counter 
>> (integer). If used properly a branch linked to a code review with
>> comments system is not bad and can be useful, I don't disagree
>> with that.
>> 
>> I've also quite often seen projects with commits that didn't have
>> proper and useful commit author info at all. This is something
>> which darcs insists on setting up but git is less strict about
>> and will happily accept author info which is not useful outside
>> the commit author's local machine realm.
You don't need to accept such commits. Just reject them and ask people
to provide proper author information.

>> To be safe I have to doubt the quality of a patch if the
>> contributor cannot be bothered to learn use the vcs properly.
I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit ignorant to me..

> Fair points, although some spend more time on their code / theory
> / research than their tooling.  Not everyone that can make
> valuable contributions is a savvy developer.  It does indicate that
> the patch should be given thorough scrutiny, though, certainly.
> 
> At least when using pull requests you will be able to figure out
> where the patch came from and at least associate it with a github
> user.
I second that. The entry barrier for less tech-savvy users is much
lower. Giving these people an easy to use interface like github would
likely lead to an increase of contributions to xmonad's development.


>>> Here's a concrete example of the benefits of some degree of
>>> centralization:
>>> 
>>> Today, I tried to rebuild all of my favorite Haskell projects
>>> using GHC 7.6.  Whenever I ran into errors while
>>> cabal-installing, I'd immediately google "github haskell $PKG",
>>> hope that one was there, and take a look at the recent commits,
>>> pull requests, and what forks exist.  For example:
>> 
>> This is a common theme and should be supported by convention in
>> tandem with metadata and optional flags on hackage so that it's
>> easier to track in the package index.
>> 
>> Another approach given Hackage would be a documented way to
>> collect compile fixes and link to it from the package index while
>> ideally also allowing to query from the command line.
> 
> Right, but actually getting people to follow and accept that 
> convention is a big process of social change, whereas people
> already use github.  There's a lot of Haskell on github - the
> diagrams project, for example, recently switched over from darcs,
> and that really benefited discussions about changes and code
> review.  In the short term, github is more effective, and it's
> getting better as time goes on (of course)
> 
>> 
>>> Now that I'm looking to do the same with XMonad, I get more
>>> errors (XMonad/Core.hs:34:25: Module `Prelude' does not export
>>> `catch'), but I have no way to tell if anyone else has already
>>> fixed these things. Minor stuff, sure, but I imagine someone's
>>> already done it, and it'd be convenient to just clone their
>>> repository.  Of course, nothing is fundamentally different from
>>> the darcs situation  - someone could have sent out an email
>>> that would achieve the same.  But the point is, they don't,
>>> because the barrier to entry is too high.  Github lowers this 
>>> barrier, encouraging more speculative commits, providing a way
>>> of finding out what people are working on.
>> 
>> What makes it lower? It's much easier to send an email than log
>> into github and use their website which may be down. Sending the
>> email to the maintainer and CC'ing the list is more reliable than
>> using github. If you have properly configured darcs or git it's
>> easy as 'darcs send'.
It is not easier to send an email, when you have to set up the whole
system yourself. Most people use web based mailing services like gmail
and configuring the mta of your standard linux distribution to make
use of that can be quite a burden for the non-initiated.

> Well, often times sending a pull request does generate email.  The 
> potential for github being down is annoying, but this has never, in
> my memory, effected my usage of the site in the past four years.
> Maybe I was lucky - but hackage outtages have effected my
> day-to-day Haskelling far more.
> 
> I use hub, http://defunkt.io/hub/, pretty heavily.  It allows you
> to do things like "hub diagrams/diagrams-core" to checkout
> repositories. You fork using "hub fork", and can create pull
> requests using "hub pull-request".
> 
>>> If anything, github promotes a healthier decentralized
>>> community, because the forks are centrally tracked, more
>>> discoverable.  This can increase the potential for
>>> collaboration and reduction of duplicated work
>> 
>> You don't gain much when all forks are on the same server and the
>> index is also centralized.
>> 
>> So, what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't start giving into
>> a single commercial entity for all of our open source
>> collaboration.
> 
> Well, you still have your local forks.  If github goes down, your 
> project lives on, and you simply need to find a github replacement
> or use the email approach.  The pull request information is
> persisted in the form of the email trail, albeit somewhat less
> friendly.  This is the advantage of DVCS (along with offline
> support) - centralizing DVCS is not a contradiction - it's infact
> natural in order to reap the benefits of both.
I couldn't agree more with that. Whenever there would be a problem
with github or in case you just don't like it anymore, return to the
standard email/remote-pull git workflow.

- From my point of view there is nothing lost by using github, but much
value added. Github is like a nice web interface for git. The
underlying system will work fine without it.

Another point I'd like to make is the switch to git in general. I
guess there are many potential users out there who would be willing to
contribute if they could work with git.
Personally I can't see an advantage of darcs over git, but I don't
want to start a vcs flame here. I probably just don't know enough
about darcs.


Best Wishes,

Jochen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlA7wp4ACgkQtVwvsA+W4CDYtACffXmgGVaI6AL51ySwKnu3156n
EEoAnAzYGQJv/U7WYgMeJDBpah7BfAqY
=v1vf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----