[Librem-5-dev] Building and testing your own kernel

[Andy Green]

On 29/12/2018 07:39, david.boddie at puri.sm wrote:
> Writing this via webmail - which is painful - so please excuse the formatting
> and quoting.
> 
> December 28, 2018 11:13 PM, "Andy Green" <andy at warmcat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 29/12/2018 07:03, Dorota Czaplejewicz wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for figuring that all out. Did you manage to affect the "main" wiki using your account? It'd
>>> be rather underwhelming if user changes all need manual approval.
>>
>> No I couldn't push back to the main wiki... it's the intentional flow from gitlab:
>>
>> $ git push ssh://git@source.puri.sm:/Librem5/developer.puri.sm.wiki.git
>> GitLab: You are not allowed to write to this project's wiki.
>> fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
>>
>> Please make sure you have the correct access rights
>> and the repository exists.
>>
>>  From a wikipedia and like perspective that's not how it should be, but from the perspective of
>> people used to github "pull requests" or gerrit review or whatever that's what feels like a normal
>> flow.
> 
> :-( Those of us with the right permissions can edit it directly, so it's a pain
> if you have to jump through those hoops.
> 
>> But it implies someone has the job to maintain the wiki, collating and vetting "pull requests" to
>> add stuff to the official wiki manually... if that's a job that should be, then it can be, if it's
>> not a job that should be, it means making the main wiki editable by all if you want a wiki-style
>> wiki.
>>
>> It being based on git means you can use normal git-fu to snip vandalism out of the history or
>> meddle with wording etc.
> 
> I think the limitations of the gitlab way of doing wikis points to a solution:
> I should try and create a repository where I can add new members as required.
> This should make it possible for Andy and others to directly edit the wiki.
> It won't be attached to the developer.puri.sm repository but that's not so
> important.

If gitlab won't let you apply group write permissions on the toplevel 
wiki alone, so allowing write access there means allowing the group to 
write everything, then that's a reasonable workaround I guess.  If 
that's possible though, might as well do what you're suggesting directly 
to the main wiki.

The main thing is collect everything in one place rather than have what 
people need fragmented and mouldering quietly in the dark... the top 
level wiki can be static and link people to the "one place" if need be.

The fact it exists and people have been getting info from it will make 
them aware they could contribute to / correct / update it, if the 
process doesn't block them too much.

-Andy

> David
>