Kilon, I'm not sure I understand - Why such resistance to pull requests? :)
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:08 PM, kilon alios <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > "And then the actual repo owners/contributors have a chance to comment on > the change (with nice tools like you can comment on individual lines of > code), and ask for corrections. (And then the author of the PR can make > corrections, and they'll show up automatically in the pull request.) Then, > finally, if they approve of the contribution, the pull request is merged." > > There is a workflow of discussion for contributors , commits can have > comments and those comments can form discussions. You can also open issues > and have a discussion there pointing to specific commits. Github issues are > not just there for bugs and now with its powerful tagging system you can > use it for all sort of discussion without polluting other kinds of issues > like bugs. Wiki can also be used for roadmap , again linking to specific > commits its easy etc. Thats what I love about Github its so flexible. > > The main difference of pull requests is a way for forks to exchange code. > I am not saying you cant have a fork that closely follows the main repo and > just send pull requests but as I said in that case it would make more sense > to be a contributor directly. The whole process of accepting is not a such > a huge deal since you can always revert or even edit specific commits. > > "As a contributor to a repo, you can create a branch and a pull request > towards another branch in that very same repo, so you have access to the > same social mechanism if you want to use it." > > yeah I kinda suspected that could be possible but why not just merge and > get it done ? Again the social mechanism of pull request is not any more > social that regular contributor commits. >
