[zeromq-dev] Proposal for libzmq maintenance

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Wed Jan 11 21:45:59 CET 2012


On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Martin Lucina <martin at lucina.net> wrote:

> 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?

Yes, and it's clear that this entangles people in github.com, at least
temporarily. That's a trade-off. In the long run it doesn't create any
lock in because we can always switch back or fro to other procedures
and tools. It remains git.

> 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.

To be honest, I've not seen overwhelming (or even significant)
contributions from this diff/email constituency, while the github PR
constituency is large and active. It seems an easy choice to make, if
we have to make a choice.

But we don't need to make a choice. If there's someone with valuable
patches to provide, but unable to use github (or really unwilling),
they just need to convince someone else (anyone) to help with a github
PR shim. Nothing bad there.

> 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.

Look, Mato, to be brutally honest, we've tried that "inclusive" policy
of emails-to-the-list for two years and it has resulted in weak,
almost marginal growth of the core libzmq contributor group. It is not
working. The consensus opinion here is that github PRs are the best
way to go now. Tried and proven in lots of other projects. If you have
other proposals, bring 'em up.

Mikko will explore how to post PRs to the list.

-Pieter



More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list