I'd also point out that some email clients do terrible things to GitHub comments when using the "reply to comment" bit. Not a blocker but it annoys me enough to mention it.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > Sorry, Benoit. Yes that's exactly what I mean. The comment should be sent > to the list. Just like comments on JIRA tickets are also sent to the list. > And like JIRA, if you want to reply, you click the link, and make your > comment on the site. > > > On 15 March 2013 21:07, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> @noah I don't think we should stop at the notification. All the >> comments should be sent to the ml. If not then we have to go on github >> to see it. Also what if github disappear or become expensive, or .... >> . >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Simon Metson <si...@cloudant.com> wrote: >> > 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 >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > NS
