[oi-dev] Lets talk about Git

[Bayard Bell]

Sounds about right to me. The other bits we'd need to sort out as per
Brussels is some kind of permissioning for established contributors. This
would be something like being granted the Developer role for
illumos-userland in Redmine and providing the same ssh key both for your
Redmine registration and your DVCS hub account (no other ssh keys allowed,
such that this confirms that no one is being clever by registering one
public key for impersonation and using another to push, although I suppose
there might remain a possible time of use/time of check attack). I think it
would still be good to have automatically generated webrev generated for
everything that clears Jenkins, with a further list mailed for all
submissions requiring review.

In the context of CI, I think we should have some kind of dependency graph
triggered so that any packages that are dependent on the package being
changed are also automatically rebuilt and tested, which particularly helps
us for components that may not have their own test suites.

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Stormont <andyjstormont at gmail.com>wrote:

> Well I guess if we were to slightly modify the new integration process we
> discussed at Brussels we could achieve this quite easily:
>
> Developer pushes to Bit Bucket or Git Hub -> Changeset is intercepted and
> passed to Jenkins for testing -> Build completes successfully and changeset
> is pushed to master repo (illumos.org) -> Sync of Bit Bucket and Git Hub
> repos is triggered.
>
> Andrew
>
> From: Bayard Bell <buffer.g.overflow at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list <oi-dev at openindiana.org>
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:40:32 +0000
>
> To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list <oi-dev at openindiana.org>
> Subject: Re: [oi-dev] Lets talk about Git
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Andrew Stormont <andyjstormont at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I just want to say straightaway that I apologise.  My intention is not to
>> start a flamewar or bike shedding but to merely show that there are
>> benefits to  offering git as an alternative to mercurial.  I'm sure if the
>> URL was 'whygitisagoodalternativetox.com' I wouldn't need to have to
>> clarify this ;)
>>
>
> No need to apologize, my response was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, not
> trying to escalate this, just to warn that it becomes a bikeshed if we have
> to choose between the two, which is preferable to avoid. I'm pretty
> comfortable that we have a reasonable grasp on how to put together a
> technical solution to co-existence with complete parity. I'd pretty excited
> about the prospect of working with you to make sure that happens.
>
> I don't think we should keep hg around because it's the best in some
> absolute sense, I think we should keep it around because it's adequate to
> our needs and conversion requires cat-herding of existing developers that's
> best avoided. We should maintain perspective: git has momentum and a very
> large user base because plenty of people do agree that git is better than
> the alternatives, and we need to respect that by letting people who like it
> continue to use it.
>
> Cheers,
> Bayard
> _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list
> oi-dev at openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> oi-dev mailing list
> oi-dev at openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://openindiana.org/pipermail/oi-dev/attachments/20120212/0510631b/attachment-0005.html>