On 17 Mar 2013, at 2:02 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2013, at 04:58 , Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Nathan Stott <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Just a CouchDB fan who has been using it since v0.8 here. I read this list >>> a lot and want to chime in on this topic. To be blunt, those who are >>> arguing to ignore pull requests or trying to keep Noah from taking his >>> suggested steps are being obtuse. The tone of this discussion and the >>> attitude towards pull requests from some contributors looks extremely bad. >> >> I don't see anyone arguing for ignoring them. >> >> On the other hand, I very much sympathize with Benoit in many ways. >> >> There are two alternatives that I like. >> >> 1) Don't allow pull requests. I mean don't *allow*. As in, there is >> literally no place to make one in the Github UI. >> 2) PR comments to go to dev@. Replies to that thread become PR comments >> somehow. >> >> If I get an email through dev@ about a PR I don't want to go to Github >> to reply, I want to respond to the email. >> >> Number 2 is the best, IMO. But without *two way* sync, the discussion >> doesn't feel smooth to me. In the absence of that, I would prefer no >> pull requests than one-directional pull request*, and say "contribute >> through these accepted methods". Unfortunately, I don't think the >> first option is *possible*. Therefore, we cannot stop people from >> making pull requests, and we can't ignore them, so one direction is >> better than no direction. >> >> If we can't turn off the ability to make a pull request at all, I >> think we go forward with comment sync and hopefully we get to full, >> two-way sync real soon. >> >> * I hate the idea that someone can make a PR and, in order to respond, >> one has to have a Github account. That feels like it violates the >> spirit of our vendor neutrality. People can always discuss things >> elsewhere (G+, Twitter, whatever), but to have an "official" channel >> like apache/couchdb on Github and not discourage contributions through >> that channel we should support it in both directions without pushing >> everyone to use Github. > > I 100% sympathise with the sentiment here. It feels technically and > socially dirty to go with a one-way solution and I wish there was a > know we can turn that makes it all work. > > Now, I think that handling PRs the way we do now is a *way worse > offense* to contributing to CouchDB than getting mails to dev@ back > to GitHub Pull Requests. Orders of magnitudes worse. > > So much so that I volunteer to manually copy all the emails that > are sent in reply to a Pull Request to dev@ back to GitHub.
I think its really important to integrate with Github. Jan I'm happy to help you with copying emails back to Github until we have a working solution. > > And yes, that sucks on a number of levels, but it gives us an 80% > solution that doesn’t hurt anyone (except me, but I volunteer) for > a problem that holds contributions to CouchDB back big time. > > Furthermore, I think two-way sync can be solved technically and I > will have every incentive to make that work, my manual labour gets > out of hand (heh). > > Finally, please stop bringing up vendor-neutralness. This is a non- > issue here. The second GitHub starts acting in a way we don’t like > it, we can drop everything. Again, this is an optimisation for sub- > group of developers that helps the project overall without making it > harder for anyone else using other means *and* it doesn’t put Apache > CouchDB into a vender-lock-in situation down the road. > > Cheers > Jan > -- > > > >
