On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:30:01AM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> On 10 August 2016 at 02:55, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 06:28:00PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> >> Some of these problems I hope public-inbox (or something like
> >> it) can fix and turn the tide towards email, again.
> >
> > This really seems like the dichotomy that drives people towards central
> > services like GitHub or GitLab.  We need an alternative that doesn't
> > involve email, or at the very least, doesn't require people to use email
> > directly.  Half of the pain in the process comes from coaxing email
> > clients that don't treat mail text as sacrosanct to leave it alone and
> > not mangle it.  (Some of that would go away if we accepted attachments
> > with inline disposition, but not all of it.  All of it would go away if
> > the submission process just involved "git push" to an appropriate
> > location.)
> But submission is less important than review. And for review it is
> usually better (except gigantic series) to have patch text for review
> with the review.

Agreed.  However, submission typically requires more work than review,
because the patch text must remain applicable.  For review, as long as
the email client you use to respond doesn't do something horrible like
*re-wrap* the quoted patch text, the result will work as a review.

Ideally, I'd love to see 1) a review UI that stores line-by-line reviews
into a common format and can translate those to email, and 2) a
mechanism to translate reviews written by email and quoting into the
review format and store them with the repository.

> And (meta)-versioning of series.

I've got a documented format for that. :)

> And place for proof-of-concept / weather-balon patches...

Same place as all other patches, just with an "RFC" tag on them.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to