Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[Ruslan Bilovol]

Hi all,

Looking at OE-core history, I see that in some cases
patch' author is incorrect, and actually is
set to openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org:
http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/log/?qt=author&q=openembedded-core%40lists.openembedded.org

Moreover, in patchwork many of these patches are mapped
incorrectly to Andrii Bordunov who isn't actually
related to most of them:
https://patchwork.openembedded.org/project/oe-core/patches/?submitter=12919&state=*&q=&archive=both&delegate=

So is something broken in OE mailing list/patchwork?

Thanks,
Ruslan

Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[Burton, Ross]

Ironically, this mail is From: Ruslan Bilovol via Openembedded-core.

This is basically due to SPF, and people sending email from
non-authoritive hosts.  Concrete example: Richard Purdie's mail comes
from a machine which the linuxfoundation.org SPF records doesn't
recognise as an authorised sender.   If mailing list software wasn't
such a pain we could stop it doing that, but apparently it is.
Another option would be to patch git to recognise a "via" From and use
the Reply-to field.

We should have a pre-commit hook to be sure that any instances of this
are caught and fixed before being pushed though.

Ross
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 14:08, Ruslan Bilovol via Openembedded-core
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Looking at OE-core history, I see that in some cases
> patch' author is incorrect, and actually is
> set to openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org:
> http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/log/?qt=author&q=openembedded-core%40lists.openembedded.org
>
> Moreover, in patchwork many of these patches are mapped
> incorrectly to Andrii Bordunov who isn't actually
> related to most of them:
> https://patchwork.openembedded.org/project/oe-core/patches/?submitter=12919&state=*&q=&archive=both&delegate=
>
> So is something broken in OE mailing list/patchwork?
>
> Thanks,
> Ruslan
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[Ruslan Bilovol]

[CCing more affected people]

On 10/12/2018 04:13 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> Ironically, this mail is From: Ruslan Bilovol via Openembedded-core.

:D

> 
> This is basically due to SPF, and people sending email from
> non-authoritive hosts.  Concrete example: Richard Purdie's mail comes
> from a machine which the linuxfoundation.org SPF records doesn't
> recognise as an authorised sender.

Hmm.. I've just sent an email from rbilovol@cisco.com to another Gmail
address, and Gmail says SPF checks passed:
  SPF:	PASS with IP 173.38.203.51
  DKIM:	'PASS' with domain cisco.com
  DMARC:	'PASS'

Does it mean oe-core mailing list's software is incorrectly configured,
or there is something else missing on @cisco.com side?

>   If mailing list software wasn't
> such a pain we could stop it doing that, but apparently it is.
> Another option would be to patch git to recognise a "via" From and use
> the Reply-to field.
> 
> We should have a pre-commit hook to be sure that any instances of this
> are caught and fixed before being pushed though.

Yes, that would be great.

Thanks,
Ruslan

> 
> Ross
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 14:08, Ruslan Bilovol via Openembedded-core
> <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Looking at OE-core history, I see that in some cases
>> patch' author is incorrect, and actually is
>> set to openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org:
>> http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/log/?qt=author&q=openembedded-core%40lists.openembedded.org
>>
>> Moreover, in patchwork many of these patches are mapped
>> incorrectly to Andrii Bordunov who isn't actually
>> related to most of them:
>> https://patchwork.openembedded.org/project/oe-core/patches/?submitter=12919&state=*&q=&archive=both&delegate=
>>
>> So is something broken in OE mailing list/patchwork?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ruslan
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[Burton, Ross]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:03, Ruslan Bilovol <rbilovol@cisco.com> wrote:
> > This is basically due to SPF, and people sending email from
> > non-authoritive hosts.  Concrete example: Richard Purdie's mail comes
> > from a machine which the linuxfoundation.org SPF records doesn't
> > recognise as an authorised sender.
>
> Hmm.. I've just sent an email from rbilovol@cisco.com to another Gmail
> address, and Gmail says SPF checks passed:
>   SPF:  PASS with IP 173.38.203.51
>   DKIM: 'PASS' with domain cisco.com
>   DMARC:        'PASS'
>
> Does it mean oe-core mailing list's software is incorrectly configured,
> or there is something else missing on @cisco.com side?

CCing yet more people, specifically Michael Halstead who admins the
machines and actually knows what he is talking about (unlike me).

Ross

Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[Taras Kondratiuk]

Quoting Burton, Ross (2018-10-12 07:04:38)
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:03, Ruslan Bilovol <rbilovol@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > This is basically due to SPF, and people sending email from
> > > non-authoritive hosts.  Concrete example: Richard Purdie's mail comes
> > > from a machine which the linuxfoundation.org SPF records doesn't
> > > recognise as an authorised sender.
> >
> > Hmm.. I've just sent an email from rbilovol@cisco.com to another Gmail
> > address, and Gmail says SPF checks passed:
> >   SPF:  PASS with IP 173.38.203.51
> >   DKIM: 'PASS' with domain cisco.com
> >   DMARC:        'PASS'
> >
> > Does it mean oe-core mailing list's software is incorrectly configured,
> > or there is something else missing on @cisco.com side?
> 
> CCing yet more people, specifically Michael Halstead who admins the
> machines and actually knows what he is talking about (unlike me).

The issue seems to be still there. It doesn't seem to be cisco.com
specific. I see actia.fr and globallogic.com too:
https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/159446/
https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/157540/

Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[richard.purdie]

On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 16:26 -0700, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> Quoting Burton, Ross (2018-10-12 07:04:38)
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:03, Ruslan Bilovol <rbilovol@cisco.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > This is basically due to SPF, and people sending email from
> > > > non-authoritive hosts.  Concrete example: Richard Purdie's mail
> > > > comes
> > > > from a machine which the linuxfoundation.org SPF records
> > > > doesn't
> > > > recognise as an authorised sender.
> > > 
> > > Hmm.. I've just sent an email from rbilovol@cisco.com to another
> > > Gmail
> > > address, and Gmail says SPF checks passed:
> > >   SPF:  PASS with IP 173.38.203.51
> > >   DKIM: 'PASS' with domain cisco.com
> > >   DMARC:        'PASS'
> > > 
> > > Does it mean oe-core mailing list's software is incorrectly
> > > configured,
> > > or there is something else missing on @cisco.com side?
> > 
> > CCing yet more people, specifically Michael Halstead who admins the
> > machines and actually knows what he is talking about (unlike me).
> 
> The issue seems to be still there. It doesn't seem to be cisco.com
> specific. I see actia.fr and globallogic.com too:
> https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/159446/
> https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/157540/

The cause is the same though, the senders are sending from addresses
which the SPF records at those domains say shouldn't be sending emails.

I'm trying to catch these and fix them up in before committing them. I
thought I had local hooks which would not allow them, clearly the hooks
need more work as things are getting through those filters.

We are looking at a different email list hosting solution which may
help. Adding "From:" lines directly in the patches where the domains
are problematic would also help. We could also in theory teach mailman
how to do that for patches but its a question of people/time/resources.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[Neal Gompa]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 6:25 AM <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 16:26 -0700, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> > Quoting Burton, Ross (2018-10-12 07:04:38)
> > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:03, Ruslan Bilovol <rbilovol@cisco.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > This is basically due to SPF, and people sending email from
> > > > > non-authoritive hosts.  Concrete example: Richard Purdie's mail
> > > > > comes
> > > > > from a machine which the linuxfoundation.org SPF records
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > recognise as an authorised sender.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm.. I've just sent an email from rbilovol@cisco.com to another
> > > > Gmail
> > > > address, and Gmail says SPF checks passed:
> > > >   SPF:  PASS with IP 173.38.203.51
> > > >   DKIM: 'PASS' with domain cisco.com
> > > >   DMARC:        'PASS'
> > > >
> > > > Does it mean oe-core mailing list's software is incorrectly
> > > > configured,
> > > > or there is something else missing on @cisco.com side?
> > >
> > > CCing yet more people, specifically Michael Halstead who admins the
> > > machines and actually knows what he is talking about (unlike me).
> >
> > The issue seems to be still there. It doesn't seem to be cisco.com
> > specific. I see actia.fr and globallogic.com too:
> > https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/159446/
> > https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/157540/
>
> The cause is the same though, the senders are sending from addresses
> which the SPF records at those domains say shouldn't be sending emails.
>
> I'm trying to catch these and fix them up in before committing them. I
> thought I had local hooks which would not allow them, clearly the hooks
> need more work as things are getting through those filters.
>
> We are looking at a different email list hosting solution which may
> help. Adding "From:" lines directly in the patches where the domains
> are problematic would also help. We could also in theory teach mailman
> how to do that for patches but its a question of people/time/resources.
>

Has anyone considered the (perhaps radical?) idea that the sending
changes as an email patch series should be replaced? For example, if
git.openembedded.org and git.yoctoproject.org were overlaid with
Pagure[0] frontends (it uses Gitolite internally, so you can have
multiple frontends in place for the same Git repos), it would be easy
enough to support pull requests, even from external Git servers. And
with that model, OE/Yocto can use CI properly (e.g. using Jenkins,
Zuul, or something else) rather than building more hacks on top of
emails.

Email is getting harder and harder to deal with for handling
contributions, and it's only more difficult as mail servers extend and
mutate emails as they work to try to combat all kinds of other
problems with email these days.

[0]: https://pagure.io/pagure


--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[richard.purdie]

On Sun, 2019-03-24 at 01:41 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Has anyone considered the (perhaps radical?) idea that the sending
> changes as an email patch series should be replaced? For example, if
> git.openembedded.org and git.yoctoproject.org were overlaid with
> Pagure[0] frontends (it uses Gitolite internally, so you can have
> multiple frontends in place for the same Git repos), it would be easy
> enough to support pull requests, even from external Git servers. And
> with that model, OE/Yocto can use CI properly (e.g. using Jenkins,
> Zuul, or something else) rather than building more hacks on top of
> emails.

Using alternatives does get discussed periodically.

It depends which problem(s) we're trying to solve really. I don't
believe that pagure/github/gitlab/etc would solve a CI problem since
our real CI challenge is we can't run our test matrix in a time frame
which allows testing of every patch.

If you mean patchtest/patchwork testing, that is a small subset of CI
and has to be carefully designed as its effectively remote code
injection. I appreciate the likes of travis also have ways of
mitigating potential issues there, there are a lot of ways it could be
done, patchtest was the way some people had time to make it work.

I'd note that pagure also has an issue tracking system so it isn't just
a front end to gitolite, its also looking to replace bugzilla.

I actually think our main issue is people with time to help work on
things. If you're saying that switching to pagure will mean we then
have number of new developers with time to help us on the project then
we should seriously consider it. I'm not convinced that is the main
barrier there to that, or that would be the outcome. I do agree it may
be a barrier to occasional submitters unfortunately though.

Also, keep in mind these pull models work well for cases where you have
a small number of reviewers. The mailing list model works better where
you have a wider team looking at review. I suspect if we switched to
something which didn't have a mail interface, we'd probably lose much
of the review we currently get and mean that we'd rely on a small
number of peope for all the review.

Obviously this is all my personal opinion and I'm very mindful of that,
I don't want to be seen to be shutting down ideas and impacting
innovation. We do also need to be mindful of what we have where it is
working too though.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 7:29 AM <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-03-24 at 01:41 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Has anyone considered the (perhaps radical?) idea that the sending
> > changes as an email patch series should be replaced? For example, if
> > git.openembedded.org and git.yoctoproject.org were overlaid with
> > Pagure[0] frontends (it uses Gitolite internally, so you can have
> > multiple frontends in place for the same Git repos), it would be easy
> > enough to support pull requests, even from external Git servers. And
> > with that model, OE/Yocto can use CI properly (e.g. using Jenkins,
> > Zuul, or something else) rather than building more hacks on top of
> > emails.
>
> Using alternatives does get discussed periodically.
>
> It depends which problem(s) we're trying to solve really. I don't
> believe that pagure/github/gitlab/etc would solve a CI problem since
> our real CI challenge is we can't run our test matrix in a time frame
> which allows testing of every patch.
>
> If you mean patchtest/patchwork testing, that is a small subset of CI
> and has to be carefully designed as its effectively remote code
> injection. I appreciate the likes of travis also have ways of
> mitigating potential issues there, there are a lot of ways it could be
> done, patchtest was the way some people had time to make it work.
>
> I'd note that pagure also has an issue tracking system so it isn't just
> a front end to gitolite, its also looking to replace bugzilla.
>
> I actually think our main issue is people with time to help work on
> things. If you're saying that switching to pagure will mean we then
> have number of new developers with time to help us on the project then
> we should seriously consider it. I'm not convinced that is the main
> barrier there to that, or that would be the outcome. I do agree it may
> be a barrier to occasional submitters unfortunately though.
>
> Also, keep in mind these pull models work well for cases where you have
> a small number of reviewers. The mailing list model works better where
> you have a wider team looking at review. I suspect if we switched to
> something which didn't have a mail interface, we'd probably lose much
> of the review we currently get and mean that we'd rely on a small
> number of peope for all the review.

This is my main concern as well. Really, the patch quantity in the oe
lists isn't much compared to most of the projects that I monitor, so the
patches being sent isn't much of an issue.

Once things go to the background/backend of pull requests, without
a patch set being sent as well, a lot of eyes on changes tend to be
lost. But of course mixes of the various approaches can make sense,
it isn't like many of us don't push to our contrib branch, send the pull
request and broadcast the patches .. hence both are already in play.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Obviously this is all my personal opinion and I'm very mindful of that,
> I don't want to be seen to be shutting down ideas and impacting
> innovation. We do also need to be mindful of what we have where it is
> working too though.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core



-- 
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II

Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches?

[Khem Raj]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 4:29 AM <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-03-24 at 01:41 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Has anyone considered the (perhaps radical?) idea that the sending
> > changes as an email patch series should be replaced? For example, if
> > git.openembedded.org and git.yoctoproject.org were overlaid with
> > Pagure[0] frontends (it uses Gitolite internally, so you can have
> > multiple frontends in place for the same Git repos), it would be easy
> > enough to support pull requests, even from external Git servers. And
> > with that model, OE/Yocto can use CI properly (e.g. using Jenkins,
> > Zuul, or something else) rather than building more hacks on top of
> > emails.
>
> Using alternatives does get discussed periodically.
>
> It depends which problem(s) we're trying to solve really. I don't
> believe that pagure/github/gitlab/etc would solve a CI problem since
> our real CI challenge is we can't run our test matrix in a time frame
> which allows testing of every patch.
>
> If you mean patchtest/patchwork testing, that is a small subset of CI
> and has to be carefully designed as its effectively remote code
> injection. I appreciate the likes of travis also have ways of
> mitigating potential issues there, there are a lot of ways it could be
> done, patchtest was the way some people had time to make it work.
>
> I'd note that pagure also has an issue tracking system so it isn't just
> a front end to gitolite, its also looking to replace bugzilla.
>
> I actually think our main issue is people with time to help work on
> things. If you're saying that switching to pagure will mean we then
> have number of new developers with time to help us on the project then
> we should seriously consider it. I'm not convinced that is the main
> barrier there to that, or that would be the outcome. I do agree it may
> be a barrier to occasional submitters unfortunately though.
>

I believe if there are no occasional submitters than eventually there are less
regular contributors. So in a way having it easy for occasional contributors
is a way for increasing chances of making more regular contributors.

several projects are thriving without using mailing lists for patches these days
some of them are full distros too.

Mailing lists were only way to share before these infrastructures existed
but aren't necessarily a better workflow than others as of today. It does have
a automation problem, where human hand is needed more than some of
these new tools, where automation is quite good in the whole workflow.

> Also, keep in mind these pull models work well for cases where you have
> a small number of reviewers. The mailing list model works better where
> you have a wider team looking at review. I suspect if we switched to
> something which didn't have a mail interface, we'd probably lose much
> of the review we currently get and mean that we'd rely on a small
> number of peope for all the review.
>
> Obviously this is all my personal opinion and I'm very mindful of that,
> I don't want to be seen to be shutting down ideas and impacting
> innovation. We do also need to be mindful of what we have where it is
> working too though.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core