From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx.bisdn.de (mx.bisdn.de [185.27.182.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE9EC57C for ; Mon, 4 May 2015 23:08:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (f052082055.adsl.alicedsl.de [78.52.82.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.bisdn.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63B80A3B27 for ; Mon, 4 May 2015 23:08:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5547DFC3.60207@bisdn.de> Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 23:08:19 +0200 From: Marc Sune User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@dpdk.org References: <20150501110914.182dcfb1@urahara> <20150501194951.GA25199@mhcomputing.net> <20150501195932.GD595@fuloong-minipc.musicnaut.iki.fi> <20150501203658.GA26543@mhcomputing.net> <20150502114059.GB28845@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] GitHub sandbox for the DPDK community X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 21:08:21 -0000 On 02/05/15 15:59, Wiles, Keith wrote: > > On 5/2/15, 6:40 AM, "Neil Horman" wrote: > >> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: >>> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 10:59:32PM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote: >>>> Projects like GCC, GLIBC, binutils, busybox, etc or what? >>>> >>>> A. >>> You'll notice all of these are low-level UNIX hacker sorts of tools >>> mostly, >>> with the partial exception of busybox. But even that is mainly for >>> embedded >>> use. It doesn't mean I don't think they're good and useful, but it does >>> limit >>> the possible size of the community in my view. >>> >>> Since we are talking about how to get the largest widest community >>> possible >>> for DPDK, it could require doing things a bit differently from how many >>> low-level tools have historically done things. >>> >> Why? >> >> Contributors to GCC: ~600 (based on svn) review >> Contrubutors to glibc : ~300 (based on git) review >> Contributors to binutils: ~600 >> Contributors to busybox: ~300 >> >> Contributors to DPDK: ~125 > I think the DPDK community can grow the number above and as we move toward > VNF/NFV I think it will grow to a much wider group of developers and not a > niche project as you stated. We can be much more then some of the above > IMHO. Keith, Since I didn't really know where to post this, I do it here. Like you, I think hosting the repository in github is a good idea to increase visibility to more developers. I am not so sure the development workflow can be shifted completely to github pull requests; there is a lot of controversy on this. So I would propose a middle-ground, *if* we think we can make it work: 1) The mailing-list, or mailing-lists, and the github pull requests should be synchronized. For this we could set a small cron job or BOT that inspects via the github API [*] the existing pull requests and emails the new ones to the DPDK mailing list. All pull requests can be downloaded as diffs and patches: https://github.com///pull/.diff https://github.com///pull/.patch [*] https://developer.github.com/v3/ The BOT could even do very basic checkings, such as the discussed "dpdk checkpatch" over the PR, and publish automatically comments on the PR based on conformance/no conformance of the patch style. 2) Discussion in the PR could be "echoed" by the bot in the mailing list, respecting the subject and threading, also via github's API. Automatic e-mails by github doesn't seem adequate to be echoed rawly in the list. 3) The synchronization needs to happen the other way around too. I am not completely sure which is the best way: a) Open an issue and reference the mailing list (DPDK mailman) for the patch and nothing more. b) More work but probably better; in a fork for the BOT of the official DPDK repository: i) Make the bot get the patch from the mailing list, create a branch, apply on top of current HEAD. If fails, notify the user to rebase its patched, informing on top of which version could not be applied ii) Issue a pull request "github.com/dpdk_bot/dpdk branch " -> "github.com/dpdk-conmmunity/dpdk branch master" 4) Discussions in the mailing list about a PULL request or a patch sent in the mailing list should be recovered by the BOT and echoed in the pull request 5) Normal issues: since the current DPDK doesn't have an issue tracker (afaik) it is easy. We could simply use that one and echo a _digested_ version of the comments into the mailing list. With this approach both "mailing list users" and "github users" should be able to work in parallel. Keith; what do you think? It really needs work, but I guess it could do the job. If you like it we could set up a small (parallel) mailing and work with your repository to try this "combined" workflow. Marc p.s. if by chance someone from github is listening reading, a functionality similar to this one would be welcome. >> Now I grant you that dpdk is a newer, much more niche project, but its >> disingenuous to state that we _have_ to do things differently to reach a >> wider >> audience. We can, but its by no means a prerequisite to gainining a wider >> audience. >>