Joey Hess <[email protected]> writes: > In my experience this leads to a raft of badly formed pull requests that > I cannot triage while offline (see Linus's rant about no diffs) and that > I have to pull up a bloated web app over https over a modem to look at; > as well as random forks, none of which are communicated to me, and > within some of which there might be value, but hunting it out is > unlikely to be a good use of my time; as well as a crappy BTS (that can > at least be disabled). This is occasionally worth the exposure of some > software I am developing, but it would certianly not be worth it for > debhelper.
Yeah, this. I don't feel as strongly about it as Joey does, but I'm not a fan of the Github development method and don't want to use it for my projects, and I'm worried that the existence of mirrors will make people think that the Github development model is invited. I've seen that happen with other projects. I suppose the whole pull request thing makes sense if one lives in a web browser already and if one either has highly clued contributors or doesn't particularly care about the cleanliness of one's commits (or is willing to spend a bunch of time nit-picking changes in pull requests). But for my packages, I rarely apply contributed patches exactly as-is, so a development method that doesn't give me the patch and that makes me merge instead of being able to git am and git commit --amend is not very useful. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
