www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - monarch dodra granted write access to phobos, druntime, and tools

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his admission among 
our github committers. We're starting with phobos, druntime, and tools 
access, and if all goes well, we'll extend write rights to dmd also.


Thanks,

Andrei
Jul 22 2013
next sibling parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 22.07.2013 20:07, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his admission among
 our github committers. We're starting with phobos, druntime, and tools
 access, and if all goes well, we'll extend write rights to dmd also.


 Thanks,

 Andrei
Congratulations, Paulo
Jul 22 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Daniel Kozak" <kozzi11 gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his 
 admission among our github committers. We're starting with 
 phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll 
 extend write rights to dmd also.


 Thanks,

 Andrei
Congratulations
Jul 22 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jonas Drewsen" <nospam4321 hotmail.com > writes:
Gratz
Jul 22 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
22-Jul-2013 22:07, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his admission among
 our github committers. We're starting with phobos, druntime, and tools
 access, and if all goes well, we'll extend write rights to dmd also.
Congrats! -- Dmitry Olshansky
Jul 22 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/22/2013 11:07 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his admission among our
 github committers. We're starting with phobos, druntime, and tools access, and
 if all goes well, we'll extend write rights to dmd also.
Congrats!
Jul 22 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his 
 admission among our github committers. We're starting with 
 phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll 
 extend write rights to dmd also.


 Thanks,

 Andrei
Great news. congrats :)
Jul 22 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his 
 admission among our github committers. We're starting with 
 phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll 
 extend write rights to dmd also.
Congratulations! Well deserved :-)
Jul 23 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his 
 admission among our github committers. We're starting with 
 phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll 
 extend write rights to dmd also.
I would like to suggest granting dmd permissions too. From the beginning. Dmd needs a lot of work and any helping hand could... help. Any mistake that could go into dmd code could be easily reverted. This is why git exists.
Jul 23 2013
next sibling parent "Maxim Fomin" <maxim maxim-fomin.ru> writes:
On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 13:25:36 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his 
 admission among our github committers. We're starting with 
 phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, 
 we'll extend write rights to dmd also.
I would like to suggest granting dmd permissions too. From the beginning.
I wouldn't be so optimistic about granting dmd repo rights, but once monarch_dodra has stable contribution to dmd, it is reasonable to provide these rights too.
 Dmd needs a lot of work and any helping hand could... help.
I don't think that adding +1 commiter will improve dmd pull queue.
 Any mistake that could go into dmd code could be easily 
 reverted. This is why git exists.
This is applied to any repo.
Jul 23 2013
prev sibling parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
eles, el 23 de July a las 15:25 me escribiste:
 On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his admission
among our github committers. We're starting with phobos, druntime,
and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll extend write rights
to dmd also.
I would like to suggest granting dmd permissions too. From the beginning. Dmd needs a lot of work and any helping hand could... help. Any mistake that could go into dmd code could be easily reverted. This is why git exists.
You don't need push access to the blessed repository to contribute, THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push access and is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there is a review bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). Right now, fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge bottleneck, and while having committed, smart people helping could be beneficial, I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to the repo right now. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey you, dont help them to bury the light Don't give in without a fight.
Jul 23 2013
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/23/13 8:27 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 You don't need push access to the blessed repository to contribute,
 THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push access and
 is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there is a review
 bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). Right now,
 fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge bottleneck,
 and while having committed, smart people helping could be beneficial,
 I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to the repo
 right now.
I'm very surprised by your outlook. My perception is that the long queue of pending pull requests not being reviewed is the single most important bottleneck at this point in history in the path of D. By my estimates I think we'd improve the speed of D's development by at least one third if we solve this one issue. There's no other issue offering so much impact. I also think it may transform into a major crisis (an inflection point in pull requests rate followed by a decline) if we leave this unresolved. We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast. Andrei
Jul 23 2013
next sibling parent dennis luehring <dl.soluz gmx.net> writes:
Am 23.07.2013 21:23, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
 On 7/23/13 8:27 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 You don't need push access to the blessed repository to contribute,
 THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push access and
 is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there is a review
 bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). Right now,
 fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge bottleneck,
 and while having committed, smart people helping could be beneficial,
 I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to the repo
 right now.
I'm very surprised by your outlook. My perception is that the long queue of pending pull requests not being reviewed is the single most important bottleneck at this point in history in the path of D. By my estimates I think we'd improve the speed of D's development by at least one third if we solve this one issue. There's no other issue offering so much impact. I also think it may transform into a major crisis (an inflection point in pull requests rate followed by a decline) if we leave this unresolved. We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast. Andrei
what about something like an (linux) stage repository, more integrated pull request, more main repo aspirants
Jul 23 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 23 de July a las 12:23 me escribiste:
 On 7/23/13 8:27 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
You don't need push access to the blessed repository to contribute,
THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push access and
is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there is a review
bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). Right now,
fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge bottleneck,
and while having committed, smart people helping could be beneficial,
I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to the repo
right now.
I'm very surprised by your outlook. My perception is that the long queue of pending pull requests not being reviewed is the single most important bottleneck at this point in history in the path of D. By my estimates I think we'd improve the speed of D's development by at least one third if we solve this one issue. There's no other issue offering so much impact.
OK, I haven't been looking at the pull request queue lately so I might have written an uninformed opinion. But anyway, you don't need to give people push access for that, people can review patches without push access. People with push access can trust certain people and blindly merge pull request those people reviewed and approved. I think having to many hands merging stuff in one project will tend to chaos. Ideally some people should have a very good global idea of what's going on with the project, even when not reviewing every commit individually, you get an idea of what's going on by just looking at the commit messages in the pull request before merging. This was my main point.
 I also think it may transform into a major crisis (an inflection
 point in pull requests rate followed by a decline) if we leave this
 unresolved.
 
 We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.
True, but giving more people push access is not necessarily the solution and there are other potential solutions. In the Linux world usually there is only one "dictator" (push access) for each repository, and he *blindly* merge stuff from "lieutenants" (people he trust) [1]. That seems to scale pretty well. [1] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows#Dictator-and-Lieutenants-Workflow -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SATANAS EN COMISARIA -- Crónica TV
Jul 24 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Don" <prosthetictelevisions teletubby.medical.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 19:24:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 On 7/23/13 8:27 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 You don't need push access to the blessed repository to 
 contribute,
 THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push 
 access and
 is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there 
 is a review
 bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). 
 Right now,
 fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge 
 bottleneck,
 and while having committed, smart people helping could be 
 beneficial,
 I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to 
 the repo
 right now.
I'm very surprised by your outlook. My perception is that the long queue of pending pull requests not being reviewed is the single most important bottleneck at this point in history in the path of D.
Yes, but OTOH, I'd like to see more people who ONLY review Phobos requests, with the distraction of also handling DMD requests. My impression is that Phobos requests currently take even longer to be merged, than DMD requests. (Far more DMD pull requests are generated than for Phobos, yet the queues are a similar length).
 By my estimates I think we'd improve the speed of D's 
 development by at least one third if we solve this one issue. 
 There's no other issue offering so much impact.
I agree.
 I also think it may transform into a major crisis (an 
 inflection point in pull requests rate followed by a decline) 
 if we leave this unresolved.
Yes. I suspect that may already apply to Phobos to some extent. Potentially there there should be many more contributors to Phobos than to DMD. But it has not happened so far.
 We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.
There are still a couple of easy practical issues. The build time is still not quick enough, which means we have a last-in-first-out structure. When the top few pull requests are controversial or harder to review, they tend to clog the request queue. The simplest immediate improvement we could do is add another FreeBSD box to the build farm. FreeBSD takes so long, and gives so many spurious failures, that we'd be currently be better off without it.
Jul 24 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 19:24:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.
What exactly is involved in reviewing pull requests? I'm pretty sure anybody can comment on anything in github so ordinary people, without commit access, could watch the feed and say something. For the last week or two I haven't been on the irc channel, but when I am, i see the pull request notes go by on the chat and sometimes take a look at them, but rarely say anything. But if we had a document with stuff to look out for, a checklist that any idiot can follow, then maybe the reviews could be done by me and other people who currently lack the authority, if you will, but who see those notifications in near real time and get a much faster response going. And, of course, the authors could refer to it themselves too. Anyway then when the committers are online, they just see a comment from someone, or maybe two someone's, but not necessary anybody in particular, saying "looks ok" and then they go ahead and merge it without further delay. If such a document exists already btw it needs to be easier to find, either a link in the README or it could *be* the README.
Jul 24 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu:

 We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.
I agree. Maybe this could help: http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/ Bye, bearophile
Jul 24 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 19:24:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 I'm very surprised by your outlook. My perception is that the 
 long queue of pending pull requests not being reviewed is the 
 single most important bottleneck at this point in history in 
 the path of D. By my estimates I think we'd improve the speed 
 of D's development by at least one third if we solve this one 
 issue. There's no other issue offering so much impact.
I agree it's the major bottleneck but disagree slightly about the details. My recent experience has been that my Phobos pull requests get _reviewed_ quite quickly but then it may take quite some time to actually get merged. Confusion can be added because the reviewers don't always indicate explicit approval of the code, so the submitter can be sitting in limbo not knowing if the lack of merge is down to the code still being inadequate or just the reviewer not getting round to merging it yet. The latter kind of delay tends to result from the situation where the reviewer is waiting for the test suite to pass. Because there's no option to auto-merge on pass, and no alert to reviewers that a pull request has passed testing, it's easy to miss windows of opportunity to merge. This only has to happen a few times for the pull request to get stuck at the bottom of the test queue and for the delay in merging just to stretch. So, I'd propose that if possible the review process include a way for reviewers to explicitly indicate, "This pull request is provisionally approved subject to testing." Approved pull requests would go on a separate priority test queue with "first in, first out" policy. If the test suite passes, they're auto-merged, if it fails they are removed from the queue and must be re-approved. Ideally it should be possible to distinguish actual test failures from something going wrong with the test procedure itself (e.g. a test process not spawning correctly) and in the latter case keeping the pull request in the approved queue. Does this sound workable/useful?
Jul 27 2013
parent "Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> writes:
On Saturday, 27 July 2013 at 11:14:06 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:

 So, I'd propose that if possible the review process include a 
 way for reviewers to explicitly indicate, "This pull request is 
 provisionally approved subject to testing."
Github supports tags. I don't know if it's possible to use tags when issues are disabled though. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jul 28 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dejan Lekic" <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his 
 admission among our github committers. We're starting with 
 phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll 
 extend write rights to dmd also.


 Thanks,

 Andrei
Woohoo! Congratulations Monarch!
Jul 23 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his 
 admission among our github committers. We're starting with 
 phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll 
 extend write rights to dmd also.


 Thanks,

 Andrei
Hooray! Nagging Andrei works! :P
Jul 23 2013
prev sibling parent reply "monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his 
 admission among our github committers. We're starting with 
 phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll 
 extend write rights to dmd also.


 Thanks,

 Andrei
Hey! Sorry it took me 4 days to discover the D announce thread. I must admit it wasn't one of the threads I looked over (although this will change starting today, lots of interesting articles here). In any case, thank you everyone for your support and kind words :) I don't think granting me dmd rights would be necessary, as I don't really know how the compiler works, and I mostly only contribute to phobos anyways (sometimes druntime). I may in the future try to contribute to dmd itself, but I wouldn't ever pull anything in there myself anyways, so giving me pull rights (at this point) would be mostly pointless. Well, here's to making D as best as it can be ^^
Jul 27 2013
parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:35:40 monarch_dodra wrote:
 On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
 
 wrote:
 Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his
 admission among our github committers. We're starting with
 phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll
 extend write rights to dmd also.
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Andrei
Hey! Sorry it took me 4 days to discover the D announce thread. I must admit it wasn't one of the threads I looked over (although this will change starting today, lots of interesting articles here). In any case, thank you everyone for your support and kind words :) I don't think granting me dmd rights would be necessary, as I don't really know how the compiler works, and I mostly only contribute to phobos anyways (sometimes druntime). I may in the future try to contribute to dmd itself, but I wouldn't ever pull anything in there myself anyways, so giving me pull rights (at this point) would be mostly pointless. Well, here's to making D as best as it can be ^^
I wouldn't want dmd commit rights for the same reason. I tend to think that commit rights to dmd and those to the standard library should be separate things, as there's quite a difference between what kind of understanding is required to work on Phobos from what is required to work on dmd (though in most cases, someone with commit rights to dmd should probably have commit rights to the libraries). In any case, welcome aboard! - Jonathan M Davis
Jul 27 2013