> That said, I understand that some (many?) users are not comfortable with > CLI interfaces and prefers a GUI interface (web UI is the same), but > there is no reason to increase the reviewers cognitive overhead by > introducing an inefficient web based patch management workflow just to > address a "simple" and unrelated interface problem.
IMO the crux of the issue here is not so much the UI, but the underlying data model, because it sets the limitations for everything that may be built on top of it. for now the two contenders seem to be, basically, 1) git and 2) mailbox. a PR is just a git branch with extras. it's worth noting that git already provides scriptable CLI tools for dealing with branches and remotes. and 1) is not better because there already exist different webuis for PR management, but because of the future tools and scripts that it makes possible relative to 2). and i, for one, would be open to hack on something that is written in scheme and uses the former data model, but i'd never touch something like debbugs. i'm not sure that this is a general sentiment around here, but i suspect that i'm not alone with this. ideally, there should be something like mumi, maybe mumi itself, that is officially sanctioned and is easy to start up locally to hack on. then frustrated contributors could write out their frustration into its source code (compunding benefit for all!) instead of the mailing list (consuming attention without much benefits). just now i wanted to take a look at mumi's sources, but the link in the manual (https://git.elephly.net/gitweb.cgi?p=software/mumi.git) times out. -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” — Carl Jung (1875–1961)
