[Spice-devel] Proposal: review branches (was Re: [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code)

[Victor Toso]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13:47AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>
>  On 26 Jul 2017, at 11:23, Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Now, any objection to
> >>
> >> 1. Recommending that we use git URLs in patches?
> >
> > If that may help, but as Christophe said, this may be overkill for
> > small series. Let's not make it a rule.
> >
> >> 2. Having a shared location for branches under review?
> >
> > This is really contrary to the distributed nature of git.
>
> If that was true, why would the inventor of git, Linus Torvalds, use a
> public shared place like kernel.org?
>
> Git gives you the freedom to have multiple repos and sync them easily.
> It does not place a restriction that you can’t have a shared one for a
> team.
>
> >
> > Add a remote remote repo if you are interested by tracking someone
> > else work, it works just as well.
>
> No, it does not. It means you need to git fetch multiple places. It’s
> complicated enough that there are 17 repositories in the spice
> project. For one of them I have 12 remotes already. That does not
> scale well.

And do you have to switch between them often? Do you consider all of
this branches interesting enough to be shared in the main repo instead
of developer's repo?

I wouldn't mind that something that is working but not reviewed or we
are not sure about the design itself stays (for years even) in a branch
in freedesktop.org or gitlab.com (if we go that way).

A simple example is the seamless mode work that was started by Ondřej,
tested/improved by Lukas and now got even support for windows [0] by
Jakub. I hate those things dying on the ML.

[0] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/2017-July/038546.html

Another example is breaking-api/abi. Instead of postponing a patch which
is on ML, we could have a branch with it to avoid forgetting to push
after the stable release is done.

> > Imho, we could benefit using a system tracking patch series state
> > from the mailing list, such as patchew. But it would probably need
> > some work to fit Spice needs.
>
> We would benefit from that, yes. But that’s another issue entirely.

Still, I mostly agree with Marc-André that following an user's repo is
better unless is something very specific like mentioned above. Of
course, this is just my opinion. As you said, git give us flexibility
and we could agree on having a wip-toso, wip-cddd, wip-teuf, etc. but
the only difference to me would be the setup... `git remote add toso-wip
other-url`.

PS: I do add remotes but I don't fetch them all the time, only when I
need them ;)

Kind regards,
    toso
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/attachments/20170727/eb176a4c/attachment.sig>