Hi, On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:26:01PM +0200, Florian Bruhin wrote: > some probably controversal proposal from me: What about creating an > "official" herbstluftwm project on github? Pushing code could be > managed via git hooks, so Thorsten could still push to the FAU repo > which then gets auto pushed to github. Would be an idea. I just tried it and you can find it on https://github.com/herbstluftwm/herbstluftwm > Rationale: > > Some search engines like duckduckgo display github repos on top in > some box. There are now some unoffical repos[1] floating around and > all this might be confusing for people - actually I remember people > linking some github repo and asking if that's the right one. Good (and sad?) argument. > The issue tracker and pull requests could be disabled, but I'd even > vouch for enabling them. Why? > > - Issue trackers is how people expect to be able to report issues > nowadays. I remember people asking where to report stuff. So that would solve the problem of an bugtracker? > - If someone wants to contribute, they can easily look at the issue > list instead of digging through the mailinglist and checking what's > not done yet by hand. Right. > - Many people already have an account on Github, so it's very painless > for them to create issues and contribute. OK, but IMO good bugtrackers do not require an account. But important is: it is no pain for us (me, you?) to maintain a bugtracker. > - Many issues are forgotten after some time, or not in BUGS at all, or > in BUGS but fixed, or in my personal collected wishlist but not in > BUGS, so not easily visible for anyone. Yes, (not) maintaining the BUGS file is horrible. > - It's much easier to add comments and more information to long-living > issues this way, and have everything at one place. I thought, the "long-living" argument says: "do everything in the git and on the ML which is archived". > - My personal opinion aside (I actually see why you prefer patches per > email for single commits now) - pull requests are how people > instictively try to contribute to projects. Just lately I've seen > someone say "why can't we contribute to Python? There's no Github > repo!" in #python. But the remaining question is: what to do with pull requests that are unmergable (because of code quality)? Say to them they should fix it and send the pull-request with the rebased commits again? > I believe the aim should be to make contributing as easy and native > for people as possible, even if that means some more work for the > maintainer. After all the time "gained" by a contribution is much > bigger than the one lost by using a different git workflow. > > We can still say patches to the ML are the prefered way of > contributing, but I believe it'd attract more people to report their > issues, and probably also more people to contribute. And if someone > doesn't want to learn about git-format-patch/git-send-email, etc., I > think this shouldn't be the thing holding them back from contributing. Well if someone does not want to learn "git format-patch origin/master" then maybe I don't want to teach him how to use git-rebase to fix the broken commits in his pull request. In my opinion we can just try it and say the preferred way is the ML. And if I get annoyed by some issue I'll complain here to find the concrete solution for issue. Note that all the arguments in your mail also imply: "Create a herbstluftwm facebook page & group" (everyone has an account, easier than sending mails, get known by more people to make them contribute to the project...) [Facebook = Internet within the Internet, Github = Git-Network+ML within the Internet] Cheers, Thorsten
Attachment:
pgp_VWPhOxMPr.pgp
Description: PGP signature