[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Repository switch over to Salsa?

On 2018-06-01 03:27 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 18:20:35 +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 03:31:00AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2018-02-03 at 19:11:42 +0100, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
>> > > Are you reestablishing commit access as it is currently?
>> > 
>> > This is also something I'm not entirely sure about. One problem I've
>> > had in the past is when preparing releases, if someone pushes then it
>> > invalidates the current release process, which is annoying. Also
>> > something I think I agree with the APT team, which they kind of
>> > decided as policy recently with the switch to salsa is that if the
>> > committers are not following very closely the project (so both mailing
>> > lists and IRC), it makes it more difficult to coordinate or be on top
>> > of what's going on.
>> I follow the mailing list. Also I strongly follow your commit policies
>> (which might be improved, so please let me know). Sometimes I also
>> fix some very minor issue in the documentation (like spelling fixes, I
>> think I also unbroke other translations previously). 

I also follow the mailing list, but am not on IRC 24/7.  But I could
show up there and ask before pushing to the repository, if that is

> Sure, for major releases those could be announced more promintently on
> the list, to prevent those kind of situation, and I should probably do
> that again more often as I used to do. The problem has usually come from
> hot-fix releases which need to be pushed quickly after an initial major
> release. In those cases being on IRC is very handy. OTOH using the sid
> branch for those, which I was not entirely sold on, means no conflict
> should arise, in theory, but one of the main reasons for that branch
> usage was precisely to just avoid those racing pushes. :)
>> > What I've been pondering about is whether switching to a merge-request
>> > based workflow for translations, or perhaps even a switch to weblate
>> > might work better for everyone?
>> I'd strongly prefer the current workflow. Having to switch to a
>> (partial) web based workflow would make me seriously reconsider my
>> involvement. Also I'm not sure everything I've done so far (like
>> stated above or fixes for errors in the (old)stable translation)
>> would still be possible then.

Any web based workflow would be a turn-off for me.

> Right, I can understand. Would having your own repo (say on salsa or
> elsewhere) where you push to, and which I'd have as one of my remotes
> (where I already always fetch from all remotes), be a workable workflow?
> I'd either notice and then integrate the changes, or a mail could be
> sent, in case I've missed some updates?

Manual steps should be avoided as much as possible since they are
error-prone and tend to cause additional work.

My preference would be to keep the current workflow, but using a second
repository would also be fine as long as I don't have to deal with
resolving merge conflicts. :-)


Reply to: