* Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? @ 2018-10-12 12:57 Ruslan Bilovol 2018-10-12 13:13 ` Burton, Ross 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Ruslan Bilovol @ 2018-10-12 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer, Richard Purdie Cc: Andrii Bordunov 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? 2018-10-12 12:57 Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? Ruslan Bilovol @ 2018-10-12 13:13 ` Burton, Ross 2018-10-12 14:03 ` Ruslan Bilovol 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Burton, Ross @ 2018-10-12 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rbilovol; +Cc: Andrii Bordunov, OE-core 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? 2018-10-12 13:13 ` Burton, Ross @ 2018-10-12 14:03 ` Ruslan Bilovol 2018-10-12 14:04 ` Burton, Ross 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Ruslan Bilovol @ 2018-10-12 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Burton, Ross; +Cc: Andrii Bordunov, OE-core [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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? 2018-10-12 14:03 ` Ruslan Bilovol @ 2018-10-12 14:04 ` Burton, Ross 2019-03-22 23:26 ` Taras Kondratiuk 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Burton, Ross @ 2018-10-12 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rbilovol; +Cc: Andrii Bordunov, OE-core 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? 2018-10-12 14:04 ` Burton, Ross @ 2019-03-22 23:26 ` Taras Kondratiuk 2019-03-23 10:25 ` richard.purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Taras Kondratiuk @ 2019-03-22 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Burton, Ross, rbilovol; +Cc: OE-core 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? 2019-03-22 23:26 ` Taras Kondratiuk @ 2019-03-23 10:25 ` richard.purdie 2019-03-24 5:41 ` Neal Gompa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: richard.purdie @ 2019-03-23 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Taras Kondratiuk, Burton, Ross, rbilovol; +Cc: OE-core 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? 2019-03-23 10:25 ` richard.purdie @ 2019-03-24 5:41 ` Neal Gompa 2019-03-24 11:29 ` richard.purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Neal Gompa @ 2019-03-24 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: Pierre-Yves Chibon, OE-core 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! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? 2019-03-24 5:41 ` Neal Gompa @ 2019-03-24 11:29 ` richard.purdie 2019-03-24 22:53 ` Bruce Ashfield 2019-03-24 23:37 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: richard.purdie @ 2019-03-24 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Neal Gompa; +Cc: Pierre-Yves Chibon, OE-core 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? 2019-03-24 11:29 ` richard.purdie @ 2019-03-24 22:53 ` Bruce Ashfield 2019-03-24 23:37 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2019-03-24 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: Pierre-Yves Chibon, OE-core 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? 2019-03-24 11:29 ` richard.purdie 2019-03-24 22:53 ` Bruce Ashfield @ 2019-03-24 23:37 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2019-03-24 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: Pierre-Yves Chibon, OE-core 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-03-24 23:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-10-12 12:57 Why openembedded-core mailing list is now author of some patches? Ruslan Bilovol 2018-10-12 13:13 ` Burton, Ross 2018-10-12 14:03 ` Ruslan Bilovol 2018-10-12 14:04 ` Burton, Ross 2019-03-22 23:26 ` Taras Kondratiuk 2019-03-23 10:25 ` richard.purdie 2019-03-24 5:41 ` Neal Gompa 2019-03-24 11:29 ` richard.purdie 2019-03-24 22:53 ` Bruce Ashfield 2019-03-24 23:37 ` Khem Raj
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.