On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2013, at 18:57 , Eli Stevens (Gmail) <wickedg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Every single email I get from a github pull request contains a header like: >> >> Reply-To: mobius-medical/dev < >> reply+p-111-0123456789abcdef-...@reply.github.com> >> >> And sending email to that email address causes the content of that email to >> show up in the pull request. >> >> Unless public repos behave differently in this regard from private ones >> (which is what I'm using when I see these), it seems like we can solve the >> content mirroring issue *trivially*. Nobody needs to volunteer to be >> online 150% of the time for anything. If someone on the ML wants to have a >> reply appear in the PR, then you make sure the reply.github.com address is >> CCd. If you don't, then just send to the ML. >> >> Is all of the discussion about github PRs unaware of this current >> email-to-PR-comment bridge, or is there some non-obvious inadequacy (in >> which case it should be spelled out)? > > Thanks for pointing this out, I looked at this as well, but then had to write > lengthy emails instead. > > My 150% number is only to illustrate the futility of this argument. > Are you considering my concern futile? I'm starting to be really annoyed by the way you handle all of this. I passed sometimes to think on that problem before posting a response to a somewhat passive-agressive mail. I always said I preferred and I would be OK for a solution that propose a 2-way channel. And this is not a theory or anything (are you putting the hand on something hot before saying it's hot?) it is a a clear concern. If we have a solution to do this, fine.
Now I also said I would prefer to not use github PR at all and would prefer a simpler workflow than multiplying the code sources. I'm working on a mail that will propose something like this. - benoît
