We fell within the expected base rate of bikeshed discussions in a public forum--no big deal.
Would it be possible to post a fresh email summarizing this thread, identifying actions taken or to be taken? On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2013, at 19:19 , Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Mar 18, 2013, at 18:57 , Eli Stevens (Gmail) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Every single email I get from a github pull request contains a header > like: > >>> > >>> Reply-To: mobius-medical/dev < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> > >>> 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.comaddress 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 > > I have replied to all of these points in the past and I made my position > clear multiple times. > > * * * > > In the meantime I have contacted Infra to sort out the technical details, > I will report when I have more details. > > * * * > > Also in the meantime, two people have contacted me to say that they are > afraid to post to dev@ because of this thread. I am fucking ashamed for > us :( > > My apologies if my behaviour here contributed to that. > > * * * > > Everybody, this whole thread is a really poor showing of the otherwise > amazing developer community around CouchDB. We value any discussion, > questions and viewpoints you might have. If you have any concerns, please > post them to this list. > > Thanks > Jan > -- > > -- Iris Couch
