On 09/19/2015 08:05 PM, Martin Klapetek wrote: > Patch from 2012 with open questions/issues from a newcomer(?), left > unattended. Having the same on Phabricator with the source being github > would be no different, would it? And there _will_ be patches left to rot > on Phabricator anyway, just like hundreds of them right now on Reviewboard.
All true, but Sune's concern was also the scenario where he actually responds instead of letting it rot, but can't get in touch with the requestee because the conversion to Phab doesn't happen. That doesn't happen with email/IRC because you reply on the medium that the requestee implicitly agreed to using, and is a new kind of problem vs. review rot in that it created frustration on two sides instead of one. Making the bot post Phab traffic back to GitHub is a fix to the notification problem, but doesn't help with getting the requestee to participate unless you make a full bridge. And if you make a full bridge, you run into problems with things like converting markup or generally limiting both review sites to the subset of shared functionality. And then we just locked Phabricator into only using functionality supported by a proprietary tool we can't change, which means we strapped ourselves to the non-free tool after all. Cheers, Eike _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
