<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body>A new request with request id 17661 has been created by koha-devel-request@lists.koha-community.org. Short info on the request is : <br><br>Title : Koha-devel Digest, Vol 187, Issue 3<br>Category : <br>Description : <div>Send Koha-devel mailing list submissions to<br> koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org<br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel<br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> koha-devel-request@lists.koha-community.org<br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> koha-devel-owner@lists.koha-community.org<br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of Koha-devel digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Follow-up patches and why not to use them (Joonas Kylmälä)<br> 2. Re: Follow-up patches and why not to use them (Julian Maurice)<br> 3. Re: Replacement of mailman (mailing lists) (Jonathan Druart)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 13:36:11 +0300<br>From: Joonas Kylmälä <joonas.kylmala@helsinki.fi><br>To: koha-devel <koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org><br>Subject: [Koha-devel] Follow-up patches and why not to use them<br>Message-ID: <d648b162-7413-6b33-52ae-372a2eafa48c@helsinki.fi><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br><br>Hi,<br><br>I just bumped in another case of follow-up patch style causing us<br>trouble. In bug<br>https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28490 I had to<br>spend considerable amount of time just reverting all the problematic<br>patches and making sure I didn't miss any related patches, instead of<br>just reverting one patch and knowing I would be good to go with that.<br>Reverting this many patches also means a lot more review work yet again<br>because you have no commit messages to reference to easily or if you<br>want to use those you have to jump from patch to patch to find out what<br>the change does. And this extra review work needs to be done by two<br>people when reverting such follow-up patch series!<br><br>If we instead asked the original author to fix the patches then this<br>work would need to be done only ~once. The argument against this I have<br>heard is that it makes the review work harder because you don't know<br>what has changed since the previous version. I think however that is not<br>very useful because the second reviewer doesn't benefit from this at all<br>and makes their work harder and also the first reviewer even sometimes<br>might review the revision after many days by which time they have<br>forgotten already the context so basically they end up in the same<br>situation as the second reviewer and have to jump between patches.<br><br>Just my two cents, I hope we can stop doing follow-ups and instead have<br>commits which contain one single change to decrease our time spent on<br>review and make sure we don't miss any problems due to having to jump<br>between so many contexts.<br><br>Joonas<br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 14:42:32 +0200<br>From: Julian Maurice <julian.maurice@biblibre.com><br>To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org<br>Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Follow-up patches and why not to use them<br>Message-ID: <eba4ccb5-ac0f-9c3c-30e5-7adc6356435a@biblibre.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed<br><br>Hi Joonas,<br><br>Do you know you can revert multiple commits at once (ie. only one <br>"revert commit" that revert a series of commits) ? Would that make it <br>easier for cases like that ?<br>And when trying to find all commits of a particular bug, git log --grep <br>is your friend.<br><br>Also, you can show a list of commits as a single diff. I have a git <br>alias defined to "diff origin/HEAD..." which shows all differences on my <br>local branch from the remote default branch (master).<br><br>When you have a lot of patches, I agree that it is sometimes useful to <br>see it as a single patch (that's why I have this git alias). But often <br>it makes sense to have separate patches.<br><br>By enforcing a "1 commit" rule we would lose the (often) logical <br>separation of patches that makes review easier.<br><br>That being said, there are other times where it would have made sense to <br>just squash all commits together before pushing them to master. So I <br>guess my opinion can be summarized at "it depends" :-)<br><br>Le 04/06/2021 à 12:36, Joonas Kylmälä a écrit :<br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> I just bumped in another case of follow-up patch style causing us<br>> trouble. In bug<br>> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28490 I had to<br>> spend considerable amount of time just reverting all the problematic<br>> patches and making sure I didn't miss any related patches, instead of<br>> just reverting one patch and knowing I would be good to go with that.<br>> Reverting this many patches also means a lot more review work yet again<br>> because you have no commit messages to reference to easily or if you<br>> want to use those you have to jump from patch to patch to find out what<br>> the change does. And this extra review work needs to be done by two<br>> people when reverting such follow-up patch series!<br>> <br>> If we instead asked the original author to fix the patches then this<br>> work would need to be done only ~once. The argument against this I have<br>> heard is that it makes the review work harder because you don't know<br>> what has changed since the previous version. I think however that is not<br>> very useful because the second reviewer doesn't benefit from this at all<br>> and makes their work harder and also the first reviewer even sometimes<br>> might review the revision after many days by which time they have<br>> forgotten already the context so basically they end up in the same<br>> situation as the second reviewer and have to jump between patches.<br>> <br>> Just my two cents, I hope we can stop doing follow-ups and instead have<br>> commits which contain one single change to decrease our time spent on<br>> review and make sure we don't miss any problems due to having to jump<br>> between so many contexts.<br>> <br>> Joonas<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Koha-devel mailing list<br>> Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org<br>> https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel<br>> website : https://www.koha-community.org/<br>> git : https://git.koha-community.org/<br>> bugs : https://bugs.koha-community.org/<br>> <br><br>-- <br>Julian Maurice<br>BibLibre<br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:03:03 +0200<br>From: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org><br>To: Joonas Kylmälä <joonas.kylmala@helsinki.fi><br>Cc: koha-devel <koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org><br>Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Replacement of mailman (mailing lists)<br>Message-ID:<br> <CAJzKNY5TegOmzanLxjV_n7SxLu2OJPQ4H_RxJ2WROEAKP1puPg@mail.gmail.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br><br>Le jeu. 3 juin 2021 à 20:59, Joonas Kylmälä<br><joonas.kylmala@helsinki.fi> a écrit :<br>><br>> Hi,<br>><br>> On 03/06/2021 16:07, Jonathan Druart wrote:<br>> > Should we keep the historical mailing list or move to something<br>> > modern, like discourse or flarum?<br>> > Is it something:<br>> > - we really want/need<br>> > - we don't want/need<br>> > - neat we could have<br>><br>> I personally don't have a need for forum type of solution, and I<br>> actually prefer mailing lists so I can have all updates from all<br>> different projects at one inbox.<br><br>I think that the two solutions I suggested can be used as a mailing list.<br><br>> > Currently the lists are not maintained (messages are not reviewed/no<br>> > moderation), the mailman version is old, looks like there are a lot of<br>> > email bounding, etc.<br>><br>> Besides the emails bounding issue, the maintenance burden would be the<br>> same with forum software, right? Also, regarding this specific case of<br>> mailman being outdated, would it be possible to just enable<br>> unattended-upgrades (if debian based server) with automatic reboot to<br>> solve this?<br><br>The problem is that the upgrade from v2 to v3 is not trivial apparently.<br><br>> About email moderation, I have not noticed getting any spam through this<br>> mailing list. If the email is not accepted won't it bounce so if someone<br>> wants to send something (like a big file) they can contact via irc or<br>> other channels to say there is a problem.<br><br>There is work that needs to be done on the server, upgrade +<br>maintenance, and maybe reinstall/move of the server.<br><br>For instance, on the server: "400 undelivered mail return to the<br>sender", "The user you are trying to contact is receiving mail at a<br>rate that 550-5.2.1 prevents additional messages from being<br>delivered", etc. There are tons like that and it's not good for<br>server's ip reputation.<br><br>The question is: do we make the work to keep mailman, or do we<br>consider it obsolete and we need something more modern?<br><br>And I have no idea I will have time to dedicate to this task anyway,<br>volunteers are welcome to help!<br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Subject: Digest Footer<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Koha-devel mailing list<br>Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org<br>https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel<br>website : https://www.koha-community.org/<br>git : https://git.koha-community.org/<br>bugs : https://bugs.koha-community.org/<br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>End of Koha-devel Digest, Vol 187, Issue 3<br>******************************************<br></div><br><br>NOTE: You are receiving this mail because, the Requester/Technician wanted you to get notified on this request creation.<br></body></html>