| 17 May 2024 |
 puck | * (mind you, i miight've already done this~) | 00:01:51 |
 Qyriad | no one external is using the C API right now I'm not sure if it matters or not | 00:03:52 |
| puck | In reply to @puck:puck.moe
i think we'll likely break the C api but i have plans to try and convince robert (we can probably have a convincing point if we have a nice API and proper rust/python bindings) | 00:04:52 |
 delroth | anyway, https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/1151 enough rabbit hole for tonight | 00:06:53 |
| delroth | also first bug I fix in Lix which is actually a Nix bug and not a regression in Lix /hides | 00:07:27 |
 julia | oh yeah for Gerrit if a change is all approved who presses the submit button? is it still one of the reviewers or is it supposed to be me | 00:13:19 |
| puck | the author, preferably | 00:13:47 |
 jade_ | author, yes | 00:14:04 |
| jade_ | it prevents the classic github blunder of not being able to decide as the submitter if you want to action a review | 00:14:34 |
| jade_ | unless you have merge rights. which is goofy! | 00:14:42 |
| jade_ | (at my last employer people had merge rights and the practice was to self-merge with an approval for exactly this reason) | 00:15:05 |
| jade_ | * (at my last employer people had github merge rights and the practice was to self-merge with an approval for exactly this reason) | 00:15:11 |
| julia | ah | 00:15:13 |
| Qyriad | This also means the author has the final say in whether their code is merged | 00:15:50 |
| julia | Gerrit is so nice it makes so much more sense than GitHub/hitlab merge request workflow I can't believe I "got taught it" (read; died having group members learn it) at uni | 00:16:11 |
| Qyriad | I know right | 00:16:34 |
| delroth | every time I wonder if the gerrit workflow is actually better or if I've just been conditioned by 9+ years of Critique | 00:17:30 |
| delroth | and then I think for 15s and realize that no, github actually really just sucks | 00:17:38 |
| puck | yeah | 00:17:42 |
| puck | like, gerrit reviews are so good, they nailed all of it by just .. replicating the email workflow but in a web ui | 00:17:56 |
| delroth | disagree: email workflow doesn't have the "resolved" bit | 00:18:23 |
| delroth | which makes it greatly inferior | 00:18:28 |
| puck | oh yes, that's fair | 00:18:30 |
| julia | also emails: [PATCH 1/25] | 00:18:57 |
| Qyriad | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
and then I think for 15s and realize that no, github actually really just sucks yeah like I couldn't really be sure that gerrit is any good at all or if it's just that github review is just that far below reasonable | 00:20:10 |
| jade_ | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
and then I think for 15s and realize that no, github actually really just sucks yeah, there were brief discussions on the forgejo channel about why we aren't using AGit on forgejo and my answer was just, it's not gerrit. it's totally fine that forgejo wants to be a gh clone, and we simply don't want that for reviews lol. | 00:20:13 |
| jade_ | forgejo arguably fixes some serious deficiencies in github's review system like pr dependencies, but it's still PR shaped and you still can't get one-commit history | 00:20:51 |
| Qyriad | yup | 00:21:13 |
| puck | In reply to @jade_:matrix.org
yeah, there were brief discussions on the forgejo channel about why we aren't using AGit on forgejo and my answer was just, it's not gerrit. it's totally fine that forgejo wants to be a gh clone, and we simply don't want that for reviews lol. tbh i haven't tried the agit flow yet; i might set up a test repo for it, but i suspect it's pretty much not good enough; but might eb a reasonable way to do gerrit-style PRs to the non-lix lix projects | 00:29:46 |
| jade_ | In reply to @puck:puck.moe
tbh i haven't tried the agit flow yet; i might set up a test repo for it, but i suspect it's pretty much not good enough; but might eb a reasonable way to do gerrit-style PRs to the non-lix lix projects it seems cute, but i think you can't push revisions with it? I'm not sure | 00:30:04 |
