We used to use stg for shipping patch sets about. Having a series of patches appear by mail that you can apply to a local review branch was pretty nice and the tool will bundle things up and mail em for you.
On Friday, 15 March 2013 at 19:58, Paul Davis wrote: > I've actually been noticing a bit of a disconnect between GitHub PR > discussions and the mailing list. > > I suppose I should finally tell everyone that as a bit of an > experiment I've actually been actively ignoring any CouchDB related > PRs to see how much discussion leaked through to the mailing list. As > everyone has probably realized that's been pretty much zero. > > We've discussed a few times about having some sort of bot that relays > replies back and forth between the ML and the PR thread (which while > theoretically sounds neat, I don't have high hopes as every being > super reliable (though I would love to be proven wrong)). > > Noah's email is actually a bit serendipitous as I was just researching > Git/Email/GitHub connectivity ideas the other night. Something > triggered the realization that we're spending an awful lot of time > discussing how to integrate the use of a tool written to directly > integrate with email to integrate with email (its right, read it > again). > > That said I did a bit of research and it looks like getting Git to > send patches around via email is relatively straight forward. Git can > send emails directly and newer versions have direct support for Gmail. > If users have issues with their particular email provider there's also > documentation on setting up msmtp as an intermediary. > > OTOH there's little to know documentation on how you manage the flip > side of things and actually do the receiving of patches over email and > apply them to a local copy of the repo. I've been looking at a few > tools to try and script something together that'll manage this > process. Not sure how easy this will be but I'm hopeful I'll be able > to knock something together. Also of interest is GitHub's "PR as mbox" > if you add the .patch extension. With a bit of scripting I reckon we'd > also be able to have a tool that fairly easily pulls those as well for > anyone that can be bothered to setup Git to send emails. > > Anyway, just a heads up that I'm gonna start playing with some of > these bits to get a feel for how easy it is to actually send patches > around via email and so on. If anyone's interested feel free to chime > in. > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hey folks, > > > > I'd like to bring two things to your attention: > > > > https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43 > > https://github.com/cloudant-labs/couchdb/pull/18 > > > > These just happen to be two pull requests I looked at today, there are more. > > > > On the one hand, this is great. Obviously. Any sort of constructive > > activity happening around CouchDB is great. > > > > But on the other hand, this discussion is core development discussion, and > > should be happening on the dev list where everybody can see it. > > > > (This is foundational stuff for an Apache project. Community building > > should be focused around the mailing lists. I get that Github is useful for > > people, but we're not a Github project, so our activity should not be > > happening there.) > > > > I don't know what to suggest. Obviously, I think pull requests are great. > > And I think the forking model of Github is great, because it allows people > > to contribute more easily, and in a manner that suits them. > > > > But on the other hand, we shouldn't be having important development > > discussions in pull requests. The PR isn't even against the Apache CouchDB > > mirror. It's against a Cloudant fork! (So even less likely that folks are > > going to see it.) > > > > Perhaps one of the policies we could document is that discussion of pull > > requests must be brought to the list. > > > > That is, if a PR comes in to the Apache Github mirror, then we make a > > polite comment on the PR that points them to the mailing list thread and > > asks them to participate in that forum, so the maximum amount of devs can > > see and contribute. > > > > We could also say that if you have a fork of CouchDB, and you're planning > > to contribute the work back to Apache CouchDB (as is the case with the > > Cloudant fork) that you do the same with any PRs that are made to your > > repos. > > > > A sample template comment could be as follows: > > > > == > > > > Thank you for the pull request! > > > > This is a mirror of the Apache CouchDB project, so many of the committers > > do not monitor it for comments. Instead of discussing this pull request > > here, I have started a thread on the [developer mailing list] and I invite > > you to participate! > > > > [LINK TO MAILING LIST THREAD] > > > > == > > > > Additionally, the mailing list thread, or the first reply to it, should CC > > the original author. > > > > One alternative to this (which is a bit of a mess, I know) is to write > > an integration that copies Github comments to the mailing list thread, and > > mailing list posts to the PR. Not sure that would work with forks of the > > main mirror, however. > > > > Thoughts? Flames? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > NS > > > > >
