Send Koha-devel mailing list submissions to
    koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    koha-devel-request@lists.koha-community.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    koha-devel-owner@lists.koha-community.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Koha-devel digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Follow-up patches and why not to use them (Joonas Kylmälä)
2. Re: Follow-up patches and why not to use them (Julian Maurice)
3. Re: Replacement of mailman (mailing lists) (Jonathan Druart)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 13:36:11 +0300
From: Joonas Kylmälä <joonas.kylmala@helsinki.fi>
To: koha-devel <koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org>
Subject: [Koha-devel] Follow-up patches and why not to use them
Message-ID: <d648b162-7413-6b33-52ae-372a2eafa48c@helsinki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Hi,

I just bumped in another case of follow-up patch style causing us
trouble. In bug
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28490 I had to
spend considerable amount of time just reverting all the problematic
patches and making sure I didn't miss any related patches, instead of
just reverting one patch and knowing I would be good to go with that.
Reverting this many patches also means a lot more review work yet again
because you have no commit messages to reference to easily or if you
want to use those you have to jump from patch to patch to find out what
the change does. And this extra review work needs to be done by two
people when reverting such follow-up patch series!

If we instead asked the original author to fix the patches then this
work would need to be done only ~once. The argument against this I have
heard is that it makes the review work harder because you don't know
what has changed since the previous version. I think however that is not
very useful because the second reviewer doesn't benefit from this at all
and makes their work harder and also the first reviewer even sometimes
might review the revision after many days by which time they have
forgotten already the context so basically they end up in the same
situation as the second reviewer and have to jump between patches.

Just my two cents, I hope we can stop doing follow-ups and instead have
commits which contain one single change to decrease our time spent on
review and make sure we don't miss any problems due to having to jump
between so many contexts.

Joonas


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 14:42:32 +0200
From: Julian Maurice <julian.maurice@biblibre.com>
To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Follow-up patches and why not to use them
Message-ID: <eba4ccb5-ac0f-9c3c-30e5-7adc6356435a@biblibre.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

Hi Joonas,

Do you know you can revert multiple commits at once (ie. only one
"revert commit" that revert a series of commits) ? Would that make it
easier for cases like that ?
And when trying to find all commits of a particular bug, git log --grep
is your friend.

Also, you can show a list of commits as a single diff. I have a git
alias defined to "diff origin/HEAD..." which shows all differences on my
local branch from the remote default branch (master).

When you have a lot of patches, I agree that it is sometimes useful to
see it as a single patch (that's why I have this git alias). But often
it makes sense to have separate patches.

By enforcing a "1 commit" rule we would lose the (often) logical
separation of patches that makes review easier.

That being said, there are other times where it would have made sense to
just squash all commits together before pushing them to master. So I
guess my opinion can be summarized at "it depends" :-)

Le 04/06/2021 à 12:36, Joonas Kylmälä a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I just bumped in another case of follow-up patch style causing us
> trouble. In bug
> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28490 I had to
> spend considerable amount of time just reverting all the problematic
> patches and making sure I didn't miss any related patches, instead of
> just reverting one patch and knowing I would be good to go with that.
> Reverting this many patches also means a lot more review work yet again
> because you have no commit messages to reference to easily or if you
> want to use those you have to jump from patch to patch to find out what
> the change does. And this extra review work needs to be done by two
> people when reverting such follow-up patch series!
>
> If we instead asked the original author to fix the patches then this
> work would need to be done only ~once. The argument against this I have
> heard is that it makes the review work harder because you don't know
> what has changed since the previous version. I think however that is not
> very useful because the second reviewer doesn't benefit from this at all
> and makes their work harder and also the first reviewer even sometimes
> might review the revision after many days by which time they have
> forgotten already the context so basically they end up in the same
> situation as the second reviewer and have to jump between patches.
>
> Just my two cents, I hope we can stop doing follow-ups and instead have
> commits which contain one single change to decrease our time spent on
> review and make sure we don't miss any problems due to having to jump
> between so many contexts.
>
> Joonas
> _______________________________________________
> Koha-devel mailing list
> Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
> https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
> website : https://www.koha-community.org/
> git : https://git.koha-community.org/
> bugs : https://bugs.koha-community.org/
>

--
Julian Maurice
BibLibre


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:03:03 +0200
From: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org>
To: Joonas Kylmälä <joonas.kylmala@helsinki.fi>
Cc: koha-devel <koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org>
Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Replacement of mailman (mailing lists)
Message-ID:
    <CAJzKNY5TegOmzanLxjV_n7SxLu2OJPQ4H_RxJ2WROEAKP1puPg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Le jeu. 3 juin 2021 à 20:59, Joonas Kylmälä
<joonas.kylmala@helsinki.fi> a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> On 03/06/2021 16:07, Jonathan Druart wrote:
> > Should we keep the historical mailing list or move to something
> > modern, like discourse or flarum?
> > Is it something:
> > - we really want/need
> > - we don't want/need
> > - neat we could have
>
> I personally don't have a need for forum type of solution, and I
> actually prefer mailing lists so I can have all updates from all
> different projects at one inbox.

I think that the two solutions I suggested can be used as a mailing list.

> > Currently the lists are not maintained (messages are not reviewed/no
> > moderation), the mailman version is old, looks like there are a lot of
> > email bounding, etc.
>
> Besides the emails bounding issue, the maintenance burden would be the
> same with forum software, right? Also, regarding this specific case of
> mailman being outdated, would it be possible to just enable
> unattended-upgrades (if debian based server) with automatic reboot to
> solve this?

The problem is that the upgrade from v2 to v3 is not trivial apparently.

> About email moderation, I have not noticed getting any spam through this
> mailing list. If the email is not accepted won't it bounce so if someone
> wants to send something (like a big file) they can contact via irc or
> other channels to say there is a problem.

There is work that needs to be done on the server, upgrade +
maintenance, and maybe reinstall/move of the server.

For instance, on the server: "400 undelivered mail return to the
sender", "The user you are trying to contact is receiving mail at a
rate that 550-5.2.1 prevents additional messages from being
delivered", etc. There are tons like that and it's not good for
server's ip reputation.

The question is: do we make the work to keep mailman, or do we
consider it obsolete and we need something more modern?

And I have no idea I will have time to dedicate to this task anyway,
volunteers are welcome to help!


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
website : https://www.koha-community.org/
git : https://git.koha-community.org/
bugs : https://bugs.koha-community.org/


------------------------------

End of Koha-devel Digest, Vol 187, Issue 3
******************************************