[zeromq-dev] Proposal for libzmq maintenance

[Martin Lucina]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:10:05 -0600
Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Martin Lucina <martin at lucina.net> wrote:
> 
> > You misunderstood what I wrote; I'm not arguing against using pull
> > requests, I'm arguing against *mandating* the Github *interface* to pull
> > requests. The Github stuff is just a wrapper that (AFAIK) creates a
> > branch for each pull request.
> 
> It does much more than that.
> 
> There is a manual process for merging pull requests. It's several
> steps and error prone. It offers no discussion thread, no workflow.
> 
> Then there is github's UI, which checks that merging is possible does
> the merging automatically when you ask it, offers workflow (cancel,
> close), ties pull requests into issues, and offers a single place for
> discussion. Take a look at the hundred or so pull requests we've had
> on the Guide. It's simple, consistent, and idiot proof.

You're right. It does even more than that:

You are aware that requiring people to use Github PRs also
requires that they host the Git repository they would like you to pull
from on Github?

Having the option of sending patches to the mailing list meant
that you accept the lowest common denominator for contributions. All
you needed was "diff" and email.

Now, we move from that to mandating the use of Git *and* hosting your
git repository on Github. This is actually exclusive, in a way, not
inclusive.

I'm not convinced.

-mato
-- 
Martin Lucina <martin at lucina.net>