[zeromq-dev] 0MQ/3.0, 0MQ/4.0 and 0MQ process
benjaminrk at gmail.com
Mon Oct 31 01:46:40 CET 2011
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 16:06, Martin Lucina <martin at lucina.net> wrote:
> mikko.koppanen at gmail.com said:
> > I'm not an expert in the field but I would like to chip in on this.
> > The github interface is a just a convenience on top pull requests and
> > provides things like syntax highlighted diffs, shows whether the
> > commit merges cleanly, allows commenting etc.
> > If the problem with the interface is that it's not visible to users on
> > mailing-lists, we can most probably use github API to send an email to
> > mailing-lists when a new pull request is opened. I like the github
> > interface a lot and would like to see us using it more.
> Sure, but then you still must have a github account to comment or
> apply/reject the pull request. So people not on Github cannot contribute,
> unlike the "pull request is an email" model.
I believe GitHub can make the 'pull request is an email' happen
automatically with hooks. Of course, that could fork discussion between
those doing review on GitHub and those doing it on the mailing list, which
might be more annoying than it's worth.
I will note as a data point that for us (IPython), the move to GitHub a
year ago increased community contributions and participation by an order of
magnitude. Not git in general, but GitHub in particular.
As for the rollback of 4.0, are there commits in 4.0 that are not in 3.0
that would want to be kept in the new 3.0-tracking master? I'm just
confused as to why the reverting would happen if the plan is simply to make
3.0 master, and 4.0 'experimental', when you can just rename libzmq/master
to libzmq/experimental, and push current zeromq3-0/master as libzmq/master.
> I guess it's the lock-in factor that annoys me personally, but then I'm
> old-school :-)
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the zeromq-dev