Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Why are we using Github (was: The any library does not pull cleanly because of a forced update on develop and master)
From: Peter A. Bigot (pab_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-18 13:08:17
On 12/18/2013 11:22 AM, Bjørn Roald wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 01:32 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> On 18.12.2013 16:11, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>> I know Boost allows use of PRs , but not sure if it allows use of
>>> features at GitHub for code reviews, etc.
>> Regretfully what Linus said about GitHub pull requests, here:
>> rings very true to me.
> the whole GitHub "public" Fork to do Pull Request deal seams a bit heavy
> handed to me. I have no real experience in using it though. In
> addition if half of what Linus is concerned about has bearing on Boost,
> then there are reasons to consider alternatives to GitHub Pull Requests
As I read that thread, much of what he objected to was github's web
commit interface making it difficult/impossible for contributions to
conform to the kernel patch standards, and that github pull requests did
not meet his work flow requirements.
The first part is eliminated if the developer pushes to a github fork
using standard git commands; then the pull request is simply a
notification of a proposed submission, which must still conform to the
upstream project's expectations. The second is only relevant if Boost
maintainers adopt Torvald's email-oriented workflow.
My experience with using github forks to interact with upstream
projects/downstream contributors has been that it is convenient to both
submitter and reviewer, since a cursory inspection can be done on the
web without integrating a mailer with one's development environment or
having to pull the changes into a local workspace. The ability to
provide comments in context with specific commits is also valuable.
Is there a proposal for an alternative Boost pull-request protocol
(specifically notification of submission, access to submission, and
medium for providing feedback on submission) that we could weigh
against github pull requests? I'd prefer not to have to submit zip
files, or hunt through mail archives to find discussion related to an
patch that was written nine months ago and accepted six months ago.