[Toaster] submission procedures and status update

[Barros Pena, Belen]

GitHub sure is a nice tool :)

I have two more questions (inline)

Thanks!

Belén

On 07/05/2015 12:28, "Alexander Kanevskiy" <kad at kad.name> wrote:

>
>
>On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Barros Pena, Belen
><belen.barros.pena at intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 07/05/2015 11:47, "Damian, Alexandru" <alexandru.damian at intel.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Sasha suggested that we move the model to using a github or similar
>>infrastructure, so that the submission tracking be more automatic.
>
>This is probably a dumb question, but hey, it's coming from the designer,
>so what did you expect? ;) What will moving to github or similar give us
>that we don't have now? Issues? Pull requests? How will the submission
>tracking be 'more automatic'?
>
>
>
>
>those are good questions and definitely to be answered.  So, as
>originator of the idea, let me elaborate a bit :)
>
>
>
>
>Using GitHub as a service would provide you few things for free, and
>you're free to use all of them or only some of them.
>- Git hosting with very good bandwidth, geographically distributed
>delivery network, etc.
>- Way to collaborate (pull requests between branches within one
>repository or between forked repositories, as anyone is free to fork).
>- Issue tracking (probably Toaster don't need it, as it's covered by
>bugzilla).
>- Wiki pages (also probably not needed).
>- freely available connected applications. good example could be Travis
>CI ( https://travis-ci.org/ ). You can easily utilise  their great
>service to run unit tests for every pull request.
>
>
>Now, about how submission tracking can be more automatic:
>
>
>- every one has ability to fork your project easily (1 click). This
>simplifies life of developers how to prepare set of patches to be sent.

What would be the "project"? Toaster is part of the poky repo, and
contributors normally develop on top of the poky master branch (Alex,
please correct me if I am wrong). We don't really keep a toaster/master
branch. 
 

>- each series of patches can be organised as pull request to main
>repository. 

How would this impact our current development workflow? Right now we have
a 2-step submission process where Alex is the upstream submission
gatekeeper (he collects contributors' patches from the Toaster mailing
list twice a week, makes sure nothing breaks and then sends them as a
patch series to the bitbake mailing list).

>- each pull request has status (open/closed). so, it's easy to get (even
>programmatically) how many pull requests are in open state for a project.
>- for every pull request you have "discussion area". so, you don't need
>to dig out via mailing lists archives if you need to look for some
>comment of patch that was discussed 5 months ago.
>- using attached CI system, it's possible to provide status of build/test
>runs for every commit or pull request.
>- GitHub has good set of APIs and hooks that can trigger CI systems
>(Jenkins/buildbot/etc) on events like new pull requests or comments or
>merges. freedom for automation compared to monitoring mailing lists :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanks!
>
>Belén
>
>--
>_______________________________________________
>toaster mailing list
>toaster at yoctoproject.org
>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/toaster
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>br, Alexander Kanevskiy
>
>