Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 12:32:11 -0500
From: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@dereferenced.org>
To: Rasmus Thomsen <oss@cogitri.dev>, =?utf-8?Q?=7Ealpine/devel?=
 <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
Message-ID: <e43638cb-45ff-4f1c-8146-4cd36256a158@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <24b91bd507e8151d41ac1d9866a4fd7a07febfe0.camel@cogitri.dev>
Subject: Re: Does it make sense to keep ~alpine/aports running?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="EdoMail5e62891b_2e6bee2e_359"

--EdoMail5e62891b_2e6bee2e_359
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

 
 
 
Hello,
 

     
 
 
>  
> On Mar 5, 2020 at 3:44 PM, Rasmus Thomsen  <oss@cogitri.dev>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  Hello list, After a patch for a package I maintain was posted on ~alpine/aports I was wondering if it really makes sense to keep ~alpine/aports and to keep allowing users to contribute by sending patches per email. Currently the ML (for patches) isn't a good experience for both users (as in patch posters) and developers (as in reviewers with push permissions). Most Alpine developers just ignore the ML since they don't like working with it or because there's no CI on the thing, requiring them to either repost the patch on Gitlab as MR (which is yet again more effort) or to test it locally and hope it works on other arches. Additionally, it's effort to keep up with two hubs where patches arrive from and for me personally it's a combination of all three of those. As such we let a lot of patches rotting because only few devs end up checking them out. This scares contributors away, since no one wants their contributions to just sit around without anyone looking at them. So I th
 ink whil
e the mantra of allowing users to contribute the way they want is very nice, I don't think users are having a good experience (_either_) due to missing reviews (and missing CI...). In my opinion it'd make most sense to just shut down ~alpine/aports and require users to make patches on Gitlab, as that'd offer numerous advantages: * No more conflicts between patches from the ML and Gitlab, users rarely check out the ML if they use Gitlab or the other way around to see if there are patches around for what they're doing already. This wastes contributor's time and demotivates them. * Reviewing patches is _way_ nicer on Gitlab compared to the ML IMHO * We actually have CI on MRs - as mentioned we currently have to repost patches on Gitlab for CI, which makes patches on the ML even more tedious. * And devs actually use the thing! Most devs just ignore the ML (me included) and only review and merge changes that are posted on Gitlab. I personally do feel like it's fine to keep the MR 
 for othe
r things like user support or the devel list (although that sees very little participation, so maybe it's time to switch there too...), but ~alpine/aports really doesn't make sense to me anymore. 
>    

  +1 on decommissioning the aports patch queue.    Since people do not keep up on it, I don't think it's worth keeping.    And it removes the primary dependency on mailing lists allowing us latitude to replace our current lists with a better solution, like Discourse.  

 
Ariadne
 
 
--EdoMail5e62891b_2e6bee2e_359
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div id=3D=22edo-message=22><div><div>Hello,</div><div><br></div></div></=
div><div id=3D=22edo-original=22><div><blockquote type=3D=22cite=22 style=
=3D=22margin: 1ex 0 0 0 =21important; border-left: 1px =23ccc solid =21im=
portant; padding-left: 0.4ex =21important;=22><div id=3D=22edo-meta=22>On=
 Mar 5, 2020 at 3:44 PM, Rasmus Thomsen &lt;<a href=3D=22mailto:oss=40cog=
itri.dev=22>oss=40cogitri.dev</a>&gt; wrote: <br><br></div><pre>Hello lis=
t,

After a patch for a package I maintain was posted on =7Ealpine/aports
I was wondering if it really makes sense to keep =7Ealpine/aports and to
keep allowing users to contribute by sending patches per email.
Currently the ML (for patches) isn't a good experience for both users
(as in patch posters) and developers (as in reviewers with push
permissions). Most Alpine developers just ignore the ML since they
don't like working with it or because there's no CI on the thing,
requiring them to either repost the patch on Gitlab as MR (which is yet
again more effort) or to test it locally and hope it works on other
arches. Additionally, it's effort to keep up with two hubs where
patches arrive from and for me personally it's a combination of all
three of those.
As such we let a lot of patches rotting because only few devs end up
checking them out. This scares contributors away, since no one wants
their contributions to just sit around without anyone looking at them.
So I think while the mantra of allowing users to contribute the way
they want is very nice, I don't think users are having a good
experience (=5Feither=5F) due to missing reviews (and missing CI...).

In my opinion it'd make most sense to just shut down =7Ealpine/aports and=

require users to make patches on Gitlab, as that'd offer numerous
advantages:

* No more conflicts between patches from the ML and Gitlab, users
rarely check out the ML if they use Gitlab or the other way around
to see if there are patches around for what they're doing already. This
wastes contributor's time and demotivates them.

* Reviewing patches is =5Fway=5F nicer on Gitlab compared to the ML IMHO

* We actually have CI on MRs - as mentioned we currently have to repost
patches on Gitlab for CI, which makes patches on the ML even more
tedious.

* And devs actually use the thing=21 Most devs just ignore the ML (me
included) and only review and merge changes that are posted on Gitlab.

I personally do feel like it's fine to keep the MR for other things
like user support or the devel list (although that sees very little
participation, so maybe it's time to switch there too...), but
=7Ealpine/aports really doesn't make sense to me anymore.
<br></pre></blockquote><font face=3D=22monospace, monospace=22><span styl=
e=3D=22font-size: 16px; white-space: pre-wrap;=22><div><font face=3D=22mo=
nospace, monospace=22><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px; white-space: pre-=
wrap;=22><br></span></font></div>+1 on decommissioning the aports patch q=
ueue.&nbsp; Since people do not keep up on it, I don't think it's worth k=
eeping.&nbsp; And it removes the primary dependency on mailing lists allo=
wing us latitude to replace our current lists with a better solution, lik=
e Discourse.</span></font></div><div><font face=3D=22monospace, monospace=
=22><span style=3D=22font-size: 16px; white-space: pre-wrap;=22><br></spa=
n></font></div><div><font face=3D=22monospace, monospace=22><span style=3D=
=22font-size: 16px; white-space: pre-wrap;=22>Ariadne</span></font></div>=
</div>
--EdoMail5e62891b_2e6bee2e_359--