On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Riccardo Iaconelli <ricca...@kde.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 19, 2015 02:12:13 AM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > I would prefer us to be more pragmatic. If an adequate free-software > > > tool exists, lets try to use it. If a proprietary tool provides a > > > better experience lets use that. For my own projects I will advocate > > > reviewboard/phabricator, but I'm comfortable excepting a fly-by patch > > > on github. Specially since they provide a simple web-UI for making > > > changes. > > > > Bollocks, github is awful to use, it took me like 15 minutes to learn how > > to submit a patch, just because you're used to it doesn't mean it's > > easier. > > It depends where other people are! > > If a developer has a small fix to propose, and can just hack it through and > use a known account and a familiar interface, so be it... github's > interface > is not magical just like KDE's one is not. ;-) > > +1 Albert, I think you are just used to reviewboard, it took me weeks to get used to review board ;) >From what I've read in this thread, nobody is against having Github solely as a mirror. I propose we do that, mirror, and we leave pull requests and issues as an opt-in feature. >From my experience, I was already mirroring KDE Connect in Github and I've received valuable patches there. That's a big enough reason for me to want Github's pull requests (and to spend 15 minutes learning how to use them), but I understand not everybody wants to learn a new and non-free tool. Albert
_______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community