On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Tue, 09.06.15 13:04, Filipe Brandenburger (filbran...@google.com) wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> >> wrote: >> > [...] so we comment and ask for a new PR, and close the old one. >> >> See my previous comment, I think this "cure" is worse than the >> "disease" :-) > > Why would you say this? Why are multiple sequencial PR, where the old > obsoleted ones are closed and locked that bad?
- Too much administrivia - Threads get split up (did I comment on the origina PR or on this one?) - Hard to follow the references around - E-mail notifications get split into separate threads (not that GitHub does a stellar job of e-mail notifications anyways...) - ... I actually think the fact that in GitHub you'll use a PR *or* and Issue is actually good, so you mainly have a single thread to discuss the same item... I just think that working around the GitHub bug of losing comments by creating a convoluted workflow around it (which is hard to enforce, as you can't really block PR authors from using `git push -f`) is the wrong approach... Maybe someone should complain to GitHub about this issue with losing track of the comments on the previous versions of the code instead? If that was fixed in GitHub, would you be happy not splitting multiple PRs for multiple versions of the same feature/issue? Cheers, Filipe _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
