Re: [PATCH 2/2] contrib/git-candidate: Add README

From: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2015, 20:19 UTC
Message-ID: <1447186751.20147.24.camel@twopensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <1447160198-23296-3-git-send-email-richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk>

I didn't actually read the code. Instead, I started with the README and decided to provide both text and UX comments all mixed up. These are mostly my personal preferences; take them or leave them as you choose.

I'm really excited about this tool and I think it's got great potential!

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 12:56 +0000, Richard Ipsum wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Describes motivation for git-candidate and shows an example workflow.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Richard Ipsum <richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk>
> ---
>  contrib/git-candidate/README.md | 154 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 154 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 contrib/git-candidate/README.md
> 
> diff --git a/contrib/git-candidate/README.md b/contrib/git-candidate/README.md
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d2d4437
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/contrib/git-candidate/README.md
> @@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
> +git-candidate

I have not heard the name "candidate" used this way. What about "git codereview"?

Show 7 quoted lines

> +=============
> +
> +git-candidate provides candidate review and patch tracking,
> +it differs from other tools that provide this by storing _all_
> +content within git.
> +
> +## Why?

I've made a few suggestions below that you might think are out of scope. If they are, it might be good to have a "non-goals" section so that people know what the scope of the tool is.

> +Existing tools such as Github's pull-requests and Gerrit are already
> +in wide use, why bother with something new?
> +
> +We

who?

> are concerned that whilst

Today I learned: "whilst" can be used in the sense of "although" (I had previously thought only "while" could be used this way, but I was wrong! )

> git is a distributed version control
> +system the systems used to store comments and reviews for content

insert comma after "system"

> +under version control are usually centralised,

replace comma with period.

> +git-candidate aims to solve this by storing
> +all patch-tracking data in git proper.

s/tracking/tracking and review/ ?  Or something

Show 13 quoted lines

> +## Example review process
> +
> +### Contributor - Submits a candidate
> +
> +	(hack hack hack)
> +
> +	(feature)$ git commit -m "Add archived repo"
> +	(feature)$ git candidate create archivedrepo master
> +		-m "Add support for archived repo"
> +	Candidate archivedrepo created successfully.
> +	(feature)$ git candidate submit origin archivedrepo
> +	Candidate was submitted successfully.
> +### Upstream - Reviews candidate

What happens if a third party wants to review candidate? OR is this just the same as if upstream does it?

Show 6 quoted lines

> +	(master)$ git candidate fetch origin
> +	(master)$ git candidate status origin/archiverepo
> +	Revision: 6239bd72d597357af901718becae91cee2a32b73
> +	Ref: candidates/origin/archiverepo
> +	Status: active
> +	Land: master

Could this be "Merge: master"? Or something that doesn't invent a new term?

Show 8 quoted lines

> +	Add archived repo support
> +
> +	 lib/gitano/command.lua | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> +	 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> +
> +	(master)$ git show candidates/origin/archiverepo
> +	commit 2db28539c8fa7b81122382bcc526c6706c9e113a
> +	Author: Richard Ipsum <richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk>

Probably better to use example.com addresses in the README rather than real people. Git traditionally uses "A U Thor" as the fake name.

Show 14 quoted lines

> +	Date:   Thu Oct 8 10:43:22 2015 +0100
> +
> +	    Add support for archived repository masking in `ls`
> +
> +	    By setting `project.archived` to something truthy, a repository
> +	    is thusly masked from `ls` output unless --all is passed in.
> +
> +	    Signed-off-by: Richard Ipsum <richard.ipsum@codethink.co.uk>
> +	....
> +	....
> +
> +
> +	(master)$ git candidate review origin/archiverepo --vote -1
> +		-m "Sorry, I'll need to see tests before I can accept this"

Are per-line or per-commit comments supported? If so, please add an example of this.

> +	(master)$ git candidate submit origin archiverepo
> +	Review added successfully

Is the contributor automatically (optionally) emailed on this? If not, consider this a feature request for this.

Show 52 quoted lines

> +### Contributor - Revises candidate
> +
> +	(master)$ git candidate fetch origin
> +	(master)$ git candidate status origin/archiverepo
> +	Revision: 6239bd72d597357af901718becae91cee2a32b73
> +	Ref: candidates/origin/archiverepo
> +	Status: active
> +	Land: master
> +
> +	Add archived repo support
> +
> +	 lib/gitano/command.lua | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> +	 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> +
> +	--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +	1 review
> +	--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +
> +	    Author: Emmet Hikory <persia@shipstone.jp>
> +	    Date:   Tue Oct 13 10:09:45 2015 +0100
> +	    Vote:   -1
> +
> +	    Sorry, I'll need to see tests before I can accept this
> +
> +	--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +
> +	(hack hack hack add tests)
> +
> +	(feature_v2)$ git log --oneline -1
> +	Ensure the `ls` yarn checks for archived repos
> +
> +	(feature_v2)$ git candidate revise origin/archiverepo
> +		-m "Add archived repo support with tests"
> +	Candidate archiverepo revised successfully.
> +
> +	(feature_v2)$ git candidate submit origin archiverepo
> +	Candidate was submitted successfully.
> +
> +### Upstream - Merges candidate
> +
> +	(master)$ git candidate fetch origin
> +	(master)$ git candidate status origin/archiverepo
> +	Revision: 4cd3d1197d399005a713ca55f126a9086356a072
> +	Ref: candidates/origin/archiverepo
> +	Status: active
> +	Land: master
> +
> +	Add archived repo support with tests
> +
> +	 lib/gitano/command.lua      | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> +	 testing/02-commands-ls.yarn | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> +	 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

"git candidate diff" might be nice too to show the diff between v1 and v2. You might even have "git candidate commit-diff" (or some better name) so you can see which commit has changed in a changeset containing multiple commits.

> +	(master)$ git candidate review origin/archiverepo --vote +2
> +		-m "Looks good, merging.  Thanks for your efforts"
> +	Review added successfully

Is that +2 "+1 because I like it, +1 because I previously -1'd it?" If so, it might be nice to have --replace-vote so you don't have to track, "wait, I did -1, then +1, then -1 again..."

> +	(master)$ git candidate submit origin archiverepo
> +	Candidate was submitted successfully.

I don't understand what the verb "submit" means here. Is it "mark this as accepted"? If so, "accept" might be a better word.

> +	(master)$ git merge candidates/origin/archiverepo

I would like "git candidate merge" to do a submit+merge the way that pull does a fetch+merge. It seems like the common case. Also, if it turns out at this point that there's a merge conflict, I might want to back out the acceptance.

Show 28 quoted lines

> +	(master)$ git push origin master
> +
> +### Contributor - Observes candidate has been accepted
> +
> +	(feature_v2)$ git candidate fetch origin
> +	(feature_v2)$ git candidate status origin/archiverepo
> +	Revision: 4cd3d1197d399005a713ca55f126a9086356a072
> +	Ref: candidates/origin/archiverepo
> +	Status: active
> +	Land: master
> +
> +	Add archived repo support with tests
> +
> +	 lib/gitano/command.lua      | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> +	 testing/02-commands-ls.yarn | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> +	 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> +
> +	--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +	1 review
> +	--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +
> +	    Author: Emmet Hikory <persia@shipstone.jp>
> +	    Date:   Tue Oct 13 10:35:00 2015 +0100
> +	    Vote:   +2
> +
> +		Looks good, merging.  Thanks for your efforts
> +
> +	--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should include here "git candidate remove archiverepo". And somewhere an example of "git candidate list".