On Sunday, September 20, 2015 01:51:19 PM Laszlo Papp wrote: > I just do not happen to see this case strong enough to support, > personally. We have not even tried to see how the mirror works out, > and we already think of whether or not it is a big problem not > allowing pull requests, et al. It is a bit fast pace.
Hi, thank you for voicing your concerns in such a manner, I do not think it is harsh at all. :-) The reason why I am still answering this thread is simply that I would like to address the "But what happens if some people do not like the direction of github being more than a mirror?" question. Everybody here agrees that github is just a mirror, and a promotion channel. The other issue is how pull requests (aka patch submissions), which cannot be disabled anyways, should be answered. There are people who would automatically close them with a big NO, and people like me who think this is a communication mistake. Since github is a promo platform, we should be open to people who reach out to us, and say something like "thank you for your patch, I have applied it/I have put it to review on phabricator/it was automatically put on review on phabricator. For next patches, please consider to submit them directly there instead of sending us a pull request". As a second discussion, there is people who found ways to get additional funding through 3rd party tools integrated with github. I think that is also reasonable (as we cannot provide any alternative), but it is a different point indeed. Bye, -Riccardo _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
