Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 07:55:54AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Richard Ipsum > > > <richard.ipsum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:40:55PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> > > > >> I'd welcome any feedback, whether on the interface and workflow, the > > > >> internals and collaboration, ideas on presenting diffs of patch series, > > > >> or anything else. > > > > > > I'm particularly interested in trying to establish a standard for > > > > storing review data in git. I've got a prototype for doing that[3], > > > > and an example tool that uses it[4]. The tool is still incomplete/buggy though. > > I'm not convinced another format/standard is needed besides the > > email workflow we already use for git and kernel development. > > Not all projects use a patches-by-email workflow, or want to. To the > extent that tools and projects use some other workflow, standardizing > the format they use to store patch reviews (including per-line > annotations, approvals, test results, etc) seems preferable to having > each tool use its own custom format. I think standardizing on email conventions (such as what we already do with format-patch, request-pull, S-o-b trailers) would be a step in this direction and a good step to take. But yeah, I also hope git adopters can somehow be convinced to also adopt the workflow that built git itself. > > I also see the reliance on an after-the-fact search engine > > (which can be tuned/replaced) as philosophically inline with > > what git does, too, such as not having rename tracking and > > doing delayed deltafication. > > Storing review data in git doesn't mean it needs to end up in the > history of the project itself; it can use after-the-fact annotations on > a commit. Right. So on public-inbox.org/git today, one could search for after-the-fact annotations based on commit titles and maybe exact commit ID matches. A future goal might be to get search indexing working on commit ID substrings. So finding references to commit deadbeefcafe01234567890123467890abcdef00 could be done by searching for "commit deadbeefcafe" or even a shorter ID, and the following results could still be returned: 1. commit deadbeefcafe broke my cat feeder 2. commit deadbeef killed my cow > > Email also has the advantage of having existing tooling, and > > being (at least for now) federated without a single point of > > failure. > > Storing review data in git makes it easy to push and pull it, which can > provide the basis for a federated system. Every public-inbox exposed over HTTP(S) is git clonable[1], so it's possible to push/pull or have developers merge/combine inboxes with index-only operations. There's no UI for that, yet, and having a working tree checked out is inefficient with 300K uncompressed mails... But there needs to be way to message others about the existence of new pushes/pull-requests/reviews/etc; including users unable to clone or host 800M git repos; so that messaging system might as well be email. [1] git clone --mirror https://public-inbox.org/git/ That's not efficient, yet, though, at around 800M when the gzipped fast-export dump is around half that: https://public-inbox.org/git/20160710034745.GA20270@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u -- 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