Re: On pull request workflows for the GNU toolchain

["Arsen Arsenović via Gdb" <gdb@sourceware.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1664 bytes --]

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:

> [For the fortran people: Discussion on gcc@]
>
> Just a general remark.
>
> There are people, such as myself, who regularly mess up
> their git repositories because they have no mental model
> of what git is doing (case in point: The Fortran unsigned
> branch, which I managed to put into an unrepairable state
> despite considerable help from people who tried to help me
> fix it). This is especially true of volunteer maintainers,
> who are still the mainstay of gfortran.
>
> Whatever you end up doing, consider such maintainers, and
> if they still can contribute or would simply give up.
> If what you end up doing is too complicated, it may end up
> severely impacting the gfortran project (and possibly others).

Git is extremely helpful if one learns to wield it rather than fight it.
It is based on a very simple model also.  I strongly encourage going
over https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2 and/or
https://eagain.net/articles/git-for-computer-scientists/ as it might
help you even independent of collaboration (for instance, I scarcely do
any work _without_ git nowadays.. it helps me to find old revisions and
temporary unfinished work, to synchronize work across machines, to
triage bugs, context switch, ...).

The workflow change proposed would reduce sending and reviewing patches
to a push, and interaction via some different (perhaps web?) means.  It
should not be more complex than email.

If the gfortran project finds that such a workflow hinders it, I suggest
a hybrid approach, where maintainers still can send patches via current
means.
-- 
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 381 bytes --]