Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 06:13:13 +0000
To: Cosmo Borsky <me@cosmoborsky.com>, ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
From: Rasmus Thomsen <oss@cogitri.dev>
Reply-To: Rasmus Thomsen <oss@cogitri.dev>
Subject: Re: Does it make sense to keep ~alpine/aports running?
Message-ID: <a1b36f583778cb14b50726289cb72a8d46b89d65.camel@cogitri.dev>
In-Reply-To: <7f0837fb-cc0a-4932-9d15-d35eceb23340@localhost>
References: <24b91bd507e8151d41ac1d9866a4fd7a07febfe0.camel@cogitri.dev>
 <C1371RU6KTBL.2M1PT8PA0ZN98@homura>,<CAJH62qngx01cLaXhTq3HSYOeL8sZzgL11H9PoFgCasLX2uY_tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1583446647339.60209@axis.com>
 <7f0837fb-cc0a-4932-9d15-d35eceb23340@localhost>
Feedback-ID: LZW2MXNaH7NSG88i8lGpebeqB0wmcl0-3TbzkSuzsmAwEQspn4GI-WRe8j3PhRL4SBmua4rQWq6fadPcLS5uxQ==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

On Fri, 2020-03-06 at 00:30 +0000, Cosmo Borsky wrote:
>=20
> We shouldn't be so hot on removing the lists if they are not getting
> attention.
>=20
> If the mailing list goes unattended, pinging devs should be OK. If a
> contributor chooses to make a GitLab account and submit a patch as a
> PR, they should be able to. If a contributor would like to email a
> patch in, they should be able to.

Well, I just took a look at the current state of ~alpine/aports to see
the amount of rotting patches and I think the whole "pinging devs"
thing doesn't really work too well. And even so, the ML places even
more workload on devs, due to missing CI, yet another workflow they
have to learn etc.

> This seems more like the mailing list is not used extensively by
> devs/maintainers because it does not fit their workflow, be it
> testing patches, merging patches, etc.

As mentioned in my first email, the main pain points are:

* No CI. I see there's a todo for that in sr.ht and I don't mean to
disrespect anyone's efforts - sr.ht is a lot better than other ML
things for me already :), but we _still_ don't have CI on there, so I'm
not exactly hopeful that we'll get it soon.

* A second community hub. There honestly is no way around this if we do
want to keep the ML, it's just an annoying situation when you have to
check yet another place for patches/duplicates.

* Reviewing via ML really, really isn't nice - although SourceHut
apparently worked on that a little already, but I think it's still not
as nice as Gitlab with markdown formatting, diff suggestions etc.?

> IMO, we should discuss what could be done to fit the developer's
> workflow and be more inclusive of those working on the mailing list.
> I've started to adapt a workflow that caters to both systems: the
> ability to mail and test mailed-in patches, and the ability to ease
> submitting PRs in eg. GitLab.

I'm sorry, but Gitlab just floats my boat to be honest. So instead of
using the (for me) worse solution for reviewing patches, I just use
Gitlab. I haven't surveyed any other devs, but my best guess from the
very low participation rate of other devs on the ML I feel like most
devs are in the same position.

> Keep in mind the lists are powered by SourceHut, which is still in
> its early days.
> If you have ideas that would improve mailing list flow, submit a PR
> to SourceHut.

Hm, I don't think I'd have suggestions that are worthwhile for
SourceHut since Gitlab already is close to the optimal hub for me, so
I'd probably just want it to be bent into yet another same looking git
community hub. I do appreciate that SourceHut has set out to do
something different and wants to appeal to people who have a different
workflow, but as mentioned Gitlab works just fine for me (and
apparently for most other devs too). I can't really think of a thing
that I super dislike on Gitlab, it fits my workflow well and reviewing
and merging patches is a pleasant experience (especially once we switch
over to Gitlab as being the upstream repo instead of g.a.o).

> Here is a task related to this thread:
> https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/dispatch.sr.ht/29

> Additionally, other Alpine lists are powered by SourceHut:
> https://lists.alpinelinux.org/lists/~alpine

Yes, as noted in my first eMail I feel like it's worth keeping the
other lists, like users and devel, since the ML _is_ a (somewhat) good
format for discussions (although the participation rate on devel isn't
good either) and SourceHut _is_ nice for that. I just feel like patches
via the ML are just too much of a painpoint to keep right now and cause
frustration on both the user and developer side.

Regards,

Rasmus thomsen