Thread: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Magnus Hagander
Date:
What do we want to do with them...

Andrew has set it up for the bulidfarm client code, and it does work,
except they get caught in the moderator queue - becuase they are sent
from noreply@github.com. The way I see it we have a couple of options
for making this work:

1) Whiltelist noreply@github.com. We have no way of controlling this
though, so *anybody* with a github repo can have it sent there, and
they all come from the same address. I don't think we can whitelist on
the combination of email and some part of the email,thus filtering
based on repo.

2) Just moderate the commit messages as they show up.

3) Ask Andrew to move the primary to git.postgresql.org and use the
commit message hook there, that will send the emails as the person who
committed the patch (like we do for pgadmin for example). This has the
advantage of allowing individual moderation, and the disadvantage that
it doesn't scale if we want to end up with lots of repositories
management-wise...

Thoughts?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 20:55 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> What do we want to do with them...
> 
> Andrew has set it up for the bulidfarm client code, and it does work,
> except they get caught in the moderator queue - becuase they are sent
> from noreply@github.com. The way I see it we have a couple of options
> for making this work:
> 
> 1) Whiltelist noreply@github.com. We have no way of controlling this
> though, so *anybody* with a github repo can have it sent there, and
> they all come from the same address. I don't think we can whitelist on
> the combination of email and some part of the email,thus filtering
> based on repo.
> 
> 2) Just moderate the commit messages as they show up.
> 
> 3) Ask Andrew to move the primary to git.postgresql.org and use the
> commit message hook there, that will send the emails as the person who
> committed the patch (like we do for pgadmin for example). This has the
> advantage of allowing individual moderation, and the disadvantage that
> it doesn't scale if we want to end up with lots of repositories
> management-wise...
> 

If we are bouncing to .Org it seems we should be using .Org. I certainly
don't want to moderate commit messages.

JD

> Thoughts?
> 
> -- 
>  Magnus Hagander
>  Me: http://www.hagander.net/
>  Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> 

-- 
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt



Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Dave Page
Date:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> What do we want to do with them...
>
> Andrew has set it up for the bulidfarm client code, and it does work,
> except they get caught in the moderator queue - becuase they are sent
> from noreply@github.com. The way I see it we have a couple of options
> for making this work:
>
> 1) Whiltelist noreply@github.com. We have no way of controlling this
> though, so *anybody* with a github repo can have it sent there, and
> they all come from the same address. I don't think we can whitelist on
> the combination of email and some part of the email,thus filtering
> based on repo.
>
> 2) Just moderate the commit messages as they show up.
>
> 3) Ask Andrew to move the primary to git.postgresql.org and use the
> commit message hook there, that will send the emails as the person who
> committed the patch (like we do for pgadmin for example). This has the
> advantage of allowing individual moderation, and the disadvantage that
> it doesn't scale if we want to end up with lots of repositories
> management-wise...
>
> Thoughts?
>

Why do we want buildfarm commit messages to come to pgsql-www?

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Andrew Dunstan
Date:

On 01/25/2011 03:24 PM, Dave Page wrote:
>
> Why do we want buildfarm commit messages to come to pgsql-www?

It was sent to -committers, not -www.

cheers

andrew


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Magnus Hagander
Date:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 21:24, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> What do we want to do with them...
>>
>> Andrew has set it up for the bulidfarm client code, and it does work,
>> except they get caught in the moderator queue - becuase they are sent
>> from noreply@github.com. The way I see it we have a couple of options
>> for making this work:
>>
>> 1) Whiltelist noreply@github.com. We have no way of controlling this
>> though, so *anybody* with a github repo can have it sent there, and
>> they all come from the same address. I don't think we can whitelist on
>> the combination of email and some part of the email,thus filtering
>> based on repo.
>>
>> 2) Just moderate the commit messages as they show up.
>>
>> 3) Ask Andrew to move the primary to git.postgresql.org and use the
>> commit message hook there, that will send the emails as the person who
>> committed the patch (like we do for pgadmin for example). This has the
>> advantage of allowing individual moderation, and the disadvantage that
>> it doesn't scale if we want to end up with lots of repositories
>> management-wise...
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> Why do we want buildfarm commit messages to come to pgsql-www?

D'uh, stupid typo on my part. Of course, I mean pgsql-committers. Sorry.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mar ene 25 16:55:20 -0300 2011:
> What do we want to do with them...
> 
> Andrew has set it up for the bulidfarm client code, and it does work,
> except they get caught in the moderator queue - becuase they are sent
> from noreply@github.com. The way I see it we have a couple of options
> for making this work:
> 
> 1) Whiltelist noreply@github.com. We have no way of controlling this
> though, so *anybody* with a github repo can have it sent there, and
> they all come from the same address. I don't think we can whitelist on
> the combination of email and some part of the email,thus filtering
> based on repo.
> 
> 2) Just moderate the commit messages as they show up.

As a pgsql-committers moderator I am not happy with #2.  It would be a
lot better if we could somehow do #1 coupled with some filtering that
only allows selected projects to go through unmoderated.  However, I
spent some time looking at Mj2 settings yesterday without success.

Could we do #3 but instead of moving the primary to git.pg.org just have
a hook or cron'ed task that pushes from github (or pulls from it)?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Magnus Hagander
Date:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 15:14, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mar ene 25 16:55:20 -0300 2011:
>> What do we want to do with them...
>>
>> Andrew has set it up for the bulidfarm client code, and it does work,
>> except they get caught in the moderator queue - becuase they are sent
>> from noreply@github.com. The way I see it we have a couple of options
>> for making this work:
>>
>> 1) Whiltelist noreply@github.com. We have no way of controlling this
>> though, so *anybody* with a github repo can have it sent there, and
>> they all come from the same address. I don't think we can whitelist on
>> the combination of email and some part of the email,thus filtering
>> based on repo.
>>
>> 2) Just moderate the commit messages as they show up.
>
> As a pgsql-committers moderator I am not happy with #2.  It would be a
> lot better if we could somehow do #1 coupled with some filtering that
> only allows selected projects to go through unmoderated.  However, I
> spent some time looking at Mj2 settings yesterday without success.

Yeah, I doubt that's actually workable :(


> Could we do #3 but instead of moving the primary to git.pg.org just have
> a hook or cron'ed task that pushes from github (or pulls from it)?

Sure, you can do something like that, but it has the same basic
"scalability problem" - all the repos need to be created and
maintained on git.postgresql.org.

Plus it requires a push hook at github (because the mail scripts fire
on receive, so it needs to be a push), which I don't think they
support.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 15:14, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Could we do #3 but instead of moving the primary to git.pg.org just have
>> a hook or cron'ed task that pushes from github (or pulls from it)?

> Sure, you can do something like that, but it has the same basic
> "scalability problem" - all the repos need to be created and
> maintained on git.postgresql.org.

> Plus it requires a push hook at github (because the mail scripts fire
> on receive, so it needs to be a push), which I don't think they
> support.

Personally I think there is way too much third-party crap showing up on
pgsql-committers already.  I am very close to changing my filters to
bit-bucket *everything* out of pgfoundry, and you can bet that if stuff
from github starts being allowed through, it will go straight to
/dev/null here.

What I'd like to see is a reversion to the original design wherein
commit traffic for pgfoundry projects goes to lists for those individual
projects.  As for github, people who want to watch that can watch it,
but please don't clutter pgsql-committers with it.
        regards, tom lane


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié ene 26 12:56:57 -0300 2011:

> Personally I think there is way too much third-party crap showing up on
> pgsql-committers already.  I am very close to changing my filters to
> bit-bucket *everything* out of pgfoundry, and you can bet that if stuff
> from github starts being allowed through, it will go straight to
> /dev/null here.

+1

> What I'd like to see is a reversion to the original design wherein
> commit traffic for pgfoundry projects goes to lists for those individual
> projects.  As for github, people who want to watch that can watch it,
> but please don't clutter pgsql-committers with it.

+1

I would even clean up the old Majordomo archives so that the pgfoundry
stuff is elsewhere ... except that it would change the URLs for the
remaining messages.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Andrew Dunstan
Date:

On 01/26/2011 10:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Personally I think there is way too much third-party crap showing up on
> pgsql-committers already.  I am very close to changing my filters to
> bit-bucket *everything* out of pgfoundry, and you can bet that if stuff
> from github starts being allowed through, it will go straight to
> /dev/null here.


That's your privilege. Personally, I filter committers into two buckets: 
pgsql and everything else. The everything else folder often only gets 
looked at once a week or so. But I do find it useful to see what's going 
on elsewhere.

The reason I moved the buildfarm client code to github is that pgfoundry 
doesn't support git, and I like github's web interface much more than 
the generic one we're using on git.postgresql.org. The buildfarm server 
code has never been on pgfoundry, but when I published it recently I 
again chose github, for the same reasons.


> What I'd like to see is a reversion to the original design wherein
> commit traffic for pgfoundry projects goes to lists for those individual
> projects.  As for github, people who want to watch that can watch it,
> but please don't clutter pgsql-committers with it.

I'm not sure where the original design bit comes in. I was involved 
heavily in setting up pgfoundry (not sure if that's a claim to fame or 
infamy, but my excuse is that Josh shanghaied me) and this has been part 
of its behaviour from the start, IIRC.

Certainly I can set up a mailing list on pgfoundry and send commit 
messages there. I was simply trying to fit in with existing practice.


cheers

andrew


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 01/26/2011 10:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What I'd like to see is a reversion to the original design wherein
>> commit traffic for pgfoundry projects goes to lists for those individual
>> projects.  As for github, people who want to watch that can watch it,
>> but please don't clutter pgsql-committers with it.

> I'm not sure where the original design bit comes in. I was involved 
> heavily in setting up pgfoundry (not sure if that's a claim to fame or 
> infamy, but my excuse is that Josh shanghaied me) and this has been part 
> of its behaviour from the start, IIRC.

Well, how come creation of a foo project results in automatic creation
of a foo-committers list there, if there was no expectation of ever
actually using that list?  I know this is still happening because it
happened last week when I set up pg_filedump at pgfoundry.  I was rather
annoyed when I found out that the commit traffic actually went to
pgsql-committers.
        regards, tom lane


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Andrew Dunstan
Date:

On 01/26/2011 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Well, how come creation of a foo project results in automatic creation
> of a foo-committers list there, if there was no expectation of ever
> actually using that list?  I know this is still happening because it
> happened last week when I set up pg_filedump at pgfoundry.  I was rather
> annoyed when I found out that the commit traffic actually went to
> pgsql-committers.
>
>             


Probably inattention on the part of the admins (including me), but I 
honestly don't recall. I know that the mail setup was discussed at the time.

cheers

andrew


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 15:14, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> >> Could we do #3 but instead of moving the primary to git.pg.org just have
> >> a hook or cron'ed task that pushes from github (or pulls from it)?
> 
> > Sure, you can do something like that, but it has the same basic
> > "scalability problem" - all the repos need to be created and
> > maintained on git.postgresql.org.
> 
> > Plus it requires a push hook at github (because the mail scripts fire
> > on receive, so it needs to be a push), which I don't think they
> > support.
> 
> Personally I think there is way too much third-party crap showing up on
> pgsql-committers already.  I am very close to changing my filters to
> bit-bucket *everything* out of pgfoundry, and you can bet that if stuff
> from github starts being allowed through, it will go straight to
> /dev/null here.

I did that years ago.  I allow only pgfoundry projects I am interested
in to flow through.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


Re: Github commit messages to pgsql-www

From
Thom Brown
Date:
On 26 January 2011 16:03, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> I would even clean up the old Majordomo archives so that the pgfoundry
> stuff is elsewhere ... except that it would change the URLs for the
> remaining messages.

+1

I'd much prefer that.  There's already *-commits, so a
pgfoundry-commits supergroup could be introduced for those wishing to
subscribe to everything that goes through pgfoundry, if such a list is
really wanted.

-- 
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935