develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2019

Re: Transition from RT to GitHub [FAQ]

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Craig A. Berry
Date:
July 12, 2019 14:52
Subject:
Re: Transition from RT to GitHub [FAQ]
Message ID:
CA+vYcVw9xiKQGAY01Mnszq+h5-4wqPPgx5sNiYRoZYcyff2hng@mail.gmail.com
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 6:00 AM Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 01:45:28AM +0300, Sawyer X wrote:

> > Q: Will this change how we use Git?
> >
> > A: There are no plans to do so. We’re just moving the “canonical” git
> > repository.
>
> Please can we take care to stick to "no plans to do so".
>
> Specifically in another mail Hugo noted one of my main concerns -
> historically github has made it easy with pull requests to make a history
> graph that is complete spaghetti (although unlike spaghetti code, this will
> of course always be acyclic (oh, prove me wrong with an SHA-1 collision)).
>
> git bisect is a very valuable tool - please can we continue to rebase
> (where possible) before merging in patches and changes.
>
> (even if the merge isn't a fast-forward, the trivial merge commit isn't
> going to mess up bisectability)

+1.  I really loathe the most common GitHub workflow where the commit
history consists almost entirely of "Merge pull request #1234 from
somebody/somebranch/about...<cut off>" which is devoid of relevant
content and I believe these merges also show up as affecting every
file in the repository, making it difficult to track history affecting
a specific file.


> > Q: Will all ticket updates be sent to the list as before?
> >
> > A: Only the initial ticket creation will show up on the list. This will
> > give you the ability to monitor only the issues you care about. You can
> > also monitor the whole project on GitHub to get all updates by simply
> > setting watch as you see fit in GitHub.
> >
> >
> > Updates will be received based on monitoring the person chooses or when
> > said person is explicitly mentioned. You may choose to monitor
> > everything (what we call the “firehose mode”), as currently on the p5p
> > mailing list.
>
> Not that I've been active recently, but personally this change is something
> that saddens me. I had always felt that it was useful that the main
> development forum was not decoupled from the nitty-gritty of
>
> 1) actually fixing stuff (ie graft, not just ideas)
> 2) the implications of changes (ie what turned out to break, what it really
>    cost)
>
>
> Also, it's really useful that mail readers are threaded. (I think RT is too).
> It's much easier to follow complex discussions in a threaded view, instead of
> a forced-sorted-by-time flat view.
>
> github only has the latter, doesn't it?

I believe it also means going to two places to follow what's going on,
doesn't it?  If I see a bug report on the mailing list and choose to
follow it, then I presumably have to go to GitHub every day and see if
anything I'm following has had changes.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About