[dpdk-dev] GitHub sandbox for the DPDK community

[Wiles, Keith]

On 5/1/15, 1:09 PM, "Stephen Hemminger" <stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 1 May 2015 15:56:32 +0000
>"Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> I believe the DPDK community would benefit from moving to GitHub as the
>> primary DPDK site. http://github.com
>> 
>> I believe the DPDK community can benefit from being at a very well know
>> world wide site. GitHub seems to have the most eyes of any of the open
>> source Git repos today and it appears they have more then twice as many
>> developers. GitHub has a number of features I see as some good
>>additions to
>> our community using the GitHub organization account type.
>> 
>> The cost for an organization account is $0 as long as we do not need
>>more
>> then 5 private repos. 10 private repos is $25/month and had other plans
>> for more. I do not see us needing more then 5 private repos today and
>>the
>> only reason I can see having a private repo is to do some prep work on
>>the
>> repo before making public. Every contributor would need to create a
>>GitHub
>> personal account, which is at no cost unless you need more then 5
>>private
>> repos. In both accounts you can have unlimited public repos.
>> 
>> 
>>https://help.github.com/articles/where-can-i-find-open-source-projects-to
>>-w
>> ork-on/
>> 
>> http://www.sitepoint.com/using-git-open-source-projects/
>> 
>> - Adding more committers can lead to a security problems for 6Wind (I
>> assume).
>> - 6Wind appearing to own DPDK.org is not a good message to the
>>community.
>>   - Not assuming 6Wind¹s dpdk.org site will disappear only where the
>> community stores the master repos and how the community interacts with
>>the
>> master.
>> - Permission and access levels in dpdk.org is only one level and we can
>> benefit from having 4 levels and teams as well.
>> - The patch process today suffers from timely reviews, which will not be
>> fixed by moving.
>>   - GitHub has a per pull request discussions area, which gives a clean
>> way to review all discussions on a specific change.
>>     - The current patch model is clone/modify/commit/send patch set
>>     - The model with GitHub is fork on GitHub/modify/commit/send pull
>> request
>> - The patchwork web site is reasonable, but has some draw backs in
>> maintaining the site.
>>   - GitHub manages the patches via pull requests and can be easily seen
>> via a web browser.
>>   - The down side is you do have to use a web browser to do some work,
>>but
>> the bulk of the everyday work would be done as it is today.
>>     - I think we all have a web browser now :-)
>> - GitHub has team support and gives a group better control plus
>> collaboration is much easier as we have a external location to work.
>>   - Most companies have some pretty high security level and being to
>> collaborate between two or more companies is very difficult if one
>>company
>> is hosting the repo behind a firewall.
>>   - Using GitHub and teams would make collaboration a lot easier or
>> collaboration between two or more user accounts as well.
>> - GitHub has a Web Page system, which can be customized for the
>>community
>> needs via a public or private repo.
>> - We still need a dpdk.org email list I believe as I did not find one at
>> GitHub.
>>   - We can also forward GitHub emails to the list.
>>   - I believe you can reply to an email from GitHub and the email will
>>get
>> appended to the discussion thread.
>> 
>
>In my experience the github pull model causes less review, not more.
>It only works if maintainers are motivated to do this as their full time
>job.
>
>With email, the patches are right in front of developers and easier to
>quote
>for review comments.

We are not getting the eyes on the review today, which means to me it will
not matter if we move to GitHub method in the future.

Personally I am able to see the differences with the GitHub display and
helps me see what is really happening. The emails are too flat and then
they can indent forever or someones email client (like mine) screws up the
format. With the GitHub method is will be exactly the same for everyone.

>