On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 03:19:11PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > I didn't actually read the code. Instead, I started with the README and > decided to provide both text and UX comments all mixed up. These are > mostly my personal preferences; take them or leave them as you choose. > > I'm really excited about this tool and I think it's got great potential! It's great to hear that, I think there is a need for a tool like this. > > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 12:56 +0000, Richard Ipsum wrote: > > Describes motivation for git-candidate and shows an example workflow. > > [snip] > > I have not heard the name "candidate" used this way. What about "git > codereview"? I admit to being quite bad at naming things, originally we were going to call this git-pull-request after the initial concept provided by Daniel Silverstone[1]. We later realised that we'd created something more flexible than pull-requests: git-candidate can be used with a pull-request model or a more tranditional patch submission model. I certainly have nothing against renaming this tool if there's some agreement on a new name, though I will point out that it's possible that the content of a candidate is not code. > > > +============= > > + > > +git-candidate provides candidate review and patch tracking, > > +it differs from other tools that provide this by storing _all_ > > +content within git. > > + > > +## Why? > > I've made a few suggestions below that you might think are out of scope. > If they are, it might be good to have a "non-goals" section so that > people know what the scope of the tool is. > > > +Existing tools such as Github's pull-requests and Gerrit are already > > +in wide use, why bother with something new? > > + > > +We > > who? At the moment the 'we' is Codethink who are sponsoring this work, but I'd like to resolve the text to not need that. > > > are concerned that whilst > > Today I learned: "whilst" can be used in the sense of "although" (I had > previously thought only "while" could be used this way, but I was wrong! > ) :) > > > git is a distributed version control > > +system the systems used to store comments and reviews for content > > insert comma after "system" ack > > > +under version control are usually centralised, > > replace comma with period. ack > > > +git-candidate aims to solve this by storing > > +all patch-tracking data in git proper. > > s/tracking/tracking and review/ ? Or something "all patch-tracking and review data in git proper" would probably be better. > > > +## Example review process > > + > > +### Contributor - Submits a candidate > > + > > + (hack hack hack) > > + > > + (feature)$ git commit -m "Add archived repo" > > + (feature)$ git candidate create archivedrepo master > > + -m "Add support for archived repo" > > + Candidate archivedrepo created successfully. > > + (feature)$ git candidate submit origin archivedrepo > > + Candidate was submitted successfully. > > +### Upstream - Reviews candidate > > What happens if a third party wants to review candidate? OR is this > just the same as if upstream does it? Exactly, the third party follows the same process as upstream. > > > + (master)$ git candidate fetch origin > > + (master)$ git candidate status origin/archiverepo > > + Revision: 6239bd72d597357af901718becae91cee2a32b73 > > + Ref: candidates/origin/archiverepo > > + Status: active > > + Land: master > > Could this be "Merge: master"? Or something that doesn't invent a new > term? Consider it done. :) > > > + Add archived repo support > > + > > + lib/gitano/command.lua | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > + 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > + > > + (master)$ git show candidates/origin/archiverepo > > + commit 2db28539c8fa7b81122382bcc526c6706c9e113a > > + Author: Richard Ipsum <richard.ipsum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Probably better to use example.com addresses in the README rather than > real people. Git traditionally uses "A U Thor" as the fake name. Will do. > > > + Date: Thu Oct 8 10:43:22 2015 +0100 > > + > > + Add support for archived repository masking in `ls` > > + > > + By setting `project.archived` to something truthy, a repository > > + is thusly masked from `ls` output unless --all is passed in. > > + > > + Signed-off-by: Richard Ipsum <richard.ipsum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > + .... > > + .... > > + > > + > > + (master)$ git candidate review origin/archiverepo --vote -1 > > + -m "Sorry, I'll need to see tests before I can accept this" > > Are per-line or per-commit comments supported? If so, please add an > example of this. That's work in progress, there will soon be a --line option to the 'comment-file' command, the status command will then render per-line comments. > > > + (master)$ git candidate submit origin archiverepo > > + Review added successfully > > Is the contributor automatically (optionally) emailed on this? If not, > consider this a feature request for this. There's no server integration of any kind at the moment, this is clearly something we will want to add. > > > +### Contributor - Revises candidate > > + > > + (master)$ git candidate fetch origin [snip] > > + (master)$ git candidate status origin/archiverepo > > + Revision: 4cd3d1197d399005a713ca55f126a9086356a072 > > + Ref: candidates/origin/archiverepo > > + Status: active > > + Land: master > > + > > + Add archived repo support with tests > > + > > + lib/gitano/command.lua | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > + testing/02-commands-ls.yarn | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > + 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > "git candidate diff" might be nice too to show the diff between v1 and > v2. You might even have "git candidate commit-diff" (or some better > name) so you can see which commit has changed in a changeset containing > multiple commits. Yes, we definitely want that. I think "git candidate diff" to diff between revisions would be sufficient, and it could take a list of files to diff as an arg? > > > + (master)$ git candidate review origin/archiverepo --vote +2 > > + -m "Looks good, merging. Thanks for your efforts" > > + Review added successfully > > Is that +2 "+1 because I like it, +1 because I previously -1'd it?" If > so, it might be nice to have --replace-vote so you don't have to track, > "wait, I did -1, then +1, then -1 again..." Votes are per-review, perhaps they should simply be per-revision? Then --vote sets the vote for the revision and there's no need for a --replace-vote option? This would use user.name and user.email as identification. > > > + (master)$ git candidate submit origin archiverepo > > + Candidate was submitted successfully. > > I don't understand what the verb "submit" means here. Is it "mark this > as accepted"? If so, "accept" might be a better word. I'm tempted to change this to 'push', 'submit' comes from gerrit. > > > + (master)$ git merge candidates/origin/archiverepo > > I would like "git candidate merge" to do a submit+merge the way that > pull does a fetch+merge. It seems like the common case. Also, if it > turns out at this point that there's a merge conflict, I might want to > back out the acceptance. There is currently no git-candidate-merge, I removed this recently because I decided that you can merge candidates with git-merge and that this is more flexible. Often a candidate will be rebased before it is merged, it would be nice to avoid having to create a merge command that needs to handle all the different cases for merging a candidate. > > > + (master)$ git push origin master > > + > > +### Contributor - Observes candidate has been accepted > > + [snip] > > You should include here "git candidate remove archiverepo". And > somewhere an example of "git candidate list". > Good point, will do. Thank you for taking the time to provide this excellent feedback. :) [1]: https://www.gitano.org.uk/ideas/git-pull-request/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html