On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:10:05 -0600 Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Martin Lucina <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You misunderstood what I wrote; I'm not arguing against using pull > > requests, I'm arguing against *mandating* the Github *interface* to pull > > requests. The Github stuff is just a wrapper that (AFAIK) creates a > > branch for each pull request. > > It does much more than that. > > There is a manual process for merging pull requests. It's several > steps and error prone. It offers no discussion thread, no workflow. > > Then there is github's UI, which checks that merging is possible does > the merging automatically when you ask it, offers workflow (cancel, > close), ties pull requests into issues, and offers a single place for > discussion. Take a look at the hundred or so pull requests we've had > on the Guide. It's simple, consistent, and idiot proof. You're right. It does even more than that: You are aware that requiring people to use Github PRs also requires that they host the Git repository they would like you to pull from on Github? Having the option of sending patches to the mailing list meant that you accept the lowest common denominator for contributions. All you needed was "diff" and email. Now, we move from that to mandating the use of Git *and* hosting your git repository on Github. This is actually exclusive, in a way, not inclusive. I'm not convinced. -mato -- Martin Lucina <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
