[chirp_devel] git vs hg patches [was: [PATCH 1/4] chirp.py: add --list-radios option (#2343)]

[Dan Smith]

> Dan I know I had brought up using github in the past. It's been about a
> year, so thought its time to bring it up again.
> 
> I work for a very large internet company who has recently, amongs other
> (buzzword alert) Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery initiatives,
> has migrated entirely to a private github. 
> I must say that it has been well received and one of the better and
> smoother internal tech migrations that we have done.

I use git, github, gerrit, and a massive CI system every day for my day
job. I'm well-versed. Git is definitely my preference these days, but I
mostly still hate when I have to use github (for anything more than a
git repo). I don't like their pull request mechanism, and I think it
generates less discussion than we have here. If we moved to that, I we
would get fewer people commenting on new changes (like you're doing now)
and more of just me merging things in a black hole. That's really not
how I prefer to do it.

In other words, my resistance to it is not born out of ignorance.

> right now most popular SCM, "everyone already knows how to use it"

There are people that work on chirp that had to learn mercurial as their
first SCM, having never known another thing. The reason I haven't
proposed a switch is to avoid switching to thing-de-jour and constantly
having to have people learn new things.

> nice built in code review tools for discussing/evolving a patch/feature
> (i.e., pull requests)

Coming from gerrit land, github's code review stuff is really lacking, IMHO.

> fork-and-pull collaboration pattern is very chirp friendly and
> permissive - while keeping control over main chirp repo
> nice api support to hook into your existing build, test, and publish
> pipelines. (Can enforce style, commit message structure, trigger your
> build systems, etc)

Git would provide a much easier way for me to pre-test stuff and report
the pass/fail before we merge it, so I'm definitely on board with that.
But, we don't have to move to github to get that necessarily.

> https://codio.com/blog/2013/06/moving-from-mercurial-to-git/

I see your link and raise you two from like-minded people (that I happen
to work with) which have detailed much of what I hate about pull requests:

> https://julien.danjou.info/blog/2013/rant-about-github-pull-request-workflow-implementation

> https://dague.net/2013/05/23/github-vs-gerrit/

That said, if everyone (please speak up) is on board with moving to git,
I'm game. I'd like to explore either or both of:

1. Using a hosted gerrit service (or running it myself)
2. Pushing proposals up somewhere, with patches to the mailing list for
   review, but with a pull request url for actual merging

Any comments on those?

I'd like to hear from at least Jim, who I believe learned mercurial just
to contribute to chirp, and who does enough work to earn a blocking veto
(IMHO).

--Dan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://intrepid.danplanet.com/pipermail/chirp_devel/attachments/20150224/80581e80/attachment-0001.bin