On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Martin Lucina <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? Yes, and it's clear that this entangles people in github.com, at least temporarily. That's a trade-off. In the long run it doesn't create any lock in because we can always switch back or fro to other procedures and tools. It remains git. > 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. To be honest, I've not seen overwhelming (or even significant) contributions from this diff/email constituency, while the github PR constituency is large and active. It seems an easy choice to make, if we have to make a choice. But we don't need to make a choice. If there's someone with valuable patches to provide, but unable to use github (or really unwilling), they just need to convince someone else (anyone) to help with a github PR shim. Nothing bad there. > 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. Look, Mato, to be brutally honest, we've tried that "inclusive" policy of emails-to-the-list for two years and it has resulted in weak, almost marginal growth of the core libzmq contributor group. It is not working. The consensus opinion here is that github PRs are the best way to go now. Tried and proven in lots of other projects. If you have other proposals, bring 'em up. Mikko will explore how to post PRs to the list. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
