Richard Eisenberg <[email protected]> writes: > I absolutely believe that we should use the best tools available and > that committed GHC contributors should have to learn these tools as > necessary. Though I've had my problems with Phab and `arc`, I'm > confident that this tool was chosen after a deliberative process and > am grateful that we have leaders in this area in our midst. > Agreed. Phab certainly has a learning curve and is not without its papercuts but on the whole seems to be an excellent tool.
> All that said, I think that the suggestion just to accept GitHub pull > requests will lead to confusion, if only for the namespace problem. If > we start to accept pull requests, then we are de facto going to have > to deal with both the GH issue tracker and Trac's (and Phab's), and > that is a terrible place to be. Part of the automated response to pull > request submissions could be a post on the GH pull request record > pointing folks to the Phab review that was created in response. The > pull request would then be closed. > This is where I was going with the beginning of a script I posted on Saturday. To me this seems like an excellent compromise: using the familiarity of Github to attract contributions and (hopefully) siphon them into Phabricator. The numbering conflicts may still be problematic but I suspect that in practice people will learn that the Github numbers are meaningless fairly quickly. Cheers, - Ben
pgpgUyI9NKHvg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
