[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5faf9ff0eaa6b72ac3c3b22e3a41bde071ae5806.camel@zv.io>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:52:05 -0600
From: Zach van Rijn <me@...io>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Current state and future of musl development
infrastructure
On Wed, 2021-12-15 at 22:22 +0100, jvoisin wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> ...
>
> I think that everyone agrees that we need a bugtracker, and
> likely some CI. Something lightweight (ho heavy dependencies),
> self-hosted, that can integrate well with emails/mailing-
> lists/patch tracking/…
My primary concern is that this will create unnecessary noise and
maintenance burdens. Note IRC and the mailing list are 3rd party.
Having watched this space over the past few years I think there
is one actual problem we need to solve and many that we don't:
1. Fixes and improvements are suggested in IRC or on the list,
then folks follow up months later to ask what is the status. The
matter is lost in the wash or it is unclear who had the baton.
Rich is busy. But is an issue tracker needed here? The rule of
thumb up to this point has been to punt it from IRC to the list.
Since Rich is the sole gatekeeper, a disciplined approach to
keeping "serious" topics/discussion to the list, and using IRC as
casual grounds for starting discussions might be sufficient. Then
a TODO list would be the right tool to ensure issues aren't lost.
For example: what of the Hexagon port?
Using an issue tracker would provide a public view of open/closed
issue status, and maybe subscriptions. Is this all that we need?
Would splitting the lists into 'musl-devel' and 'musl-support' be
enough? Even this seems like overkill.
Most of the other problems are mitigated by the sole-developer
model and general nature (libc) of this project:
* Quality control -- each change is already carefully reviewed
* Widespread testing by various distros
* Relative stability and low churn -- ~50 commits in a year!
As for CI.
It would probably be helpful to be able to run libc-test and
perhaps other applications on a number of real hardware platforms
in some automated manner.
> ...
>
> dalias is very adamant that CI & testing don't belong in the
> same repo as software, but in a separate one.
+1
> Most of the forges providing continuous integration (gogs,
> gitea, gitlab, …) don't play nice with emails, except sourcehut
> ( https://sourcehut.org/ ), which is "email first".
>
> Henceforth, I think that a good move forward would be to go
> with sourcehut:
Very few people want to read documentation to submit patches.
I must say, I had to use Google to find the sourcehut docs. Can
you find it on https://sourcehut.org/ or https://sr.ht/ ?
The ~foo/bar+baz@...mple.com syntax is unintuitive for newcomers.
> ...
>
>
> What do you people think?
Overall the volume of fixes/improvements/features is so low that
it might not make sense to set up and maintain any more than:
1. A TODO list
2. A brick-simple cluster of machines for testing
/$0.02
ZV
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
