Post 9fQywQkU6VYhyfv0zo by djmoch@mastodon.technology
(DIR) More posts by djmoch@mastodon.technology
(DIR) Post #9fQvJg0z6xpAAVSvYG by HerraBRE@mastodon.xyz
2019-02-02T18:25:58Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I claimed in a thread today, that projects using GitHub as a mirror, but refusing to process pull requests were being unnecessarily hostile to newcomers. This could be automated.I decided to check my claim. Hilarity.Turns out if you append the six characters ".patch" to the URL of the pull request, GitHub serves up a plain-text patch formatted as an mbox format file.The man-page for `git send-email` specifies that as it's first preferred input format...So, yeah: https://mastodon.xyz/@HerraBRE/101522964413268617
(DIR) Post #9fQywPlVlCmmvZOJxQ by technomancy@icosahedron.website
2019-02-02T18:36:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@HerraBRE to me one of the best perks of the mailing-list-centric flow is precisely *because* it makes it so much easier to accept patches from a variety of sources. let casual contributors send patches from GitHub, core contributors can email the mailing list for discussion, others can link to a small .patch in an IRC channel; it all ends up in the same place in the end.
(DIR) Post #9fQywQ3wefWzqk12gq by djmoch@mastodon.technology
2019-02-02T18:45:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@technomancy @HerraBRE Yeah, I think it's kind of unfortunate that projects have to make a choice between mirroring to Github (with all of the exposure that provides) and working the way they want to work. OTOH, I see the point about this being easy to automate. It seems like it wouldn't be that hard to write a bot to forward a pull request to a mailing list as a patch.
(DIR) Post #9fQywQEE2RkqMcpFiK by HerraBRE@mastodon.xyz
2019-02-02T18:46:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@djmoch @technomancy Especially not when you consider that these projects ALREADY have bots that close the PRs and tell people they're "doing it wrong."
(DIR) Post #9fQywQPZMGpQvo8JOa by djmoch@mastodon.technology
2019-02-02T18:49:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@HerraBRE @technomancy I'm trying to interpret that move as generously as they can, and I think the counterargument would be that if they didn't clarify their usual development process to newcomers, then those newcomers might never find out. There's a lot of value to participating in mailing lists and they'd be missing out on if they just throw PR's over the fence.
(DIR) Post #9fQywQaCijKrSn6nyK by HerraBRE@mastodon.xyz
2019-02-02T18:51:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@djmoch @technomancy I think a lot - probably most - of the systemic "hostility" in FOSS is accidental. But it still sucks when people encounter it.This is an example of that dynamic. The system sets people up for failure, in spite of good intentions from those who created it.
(DIR) Post #9fQywQkU6VYhyfv0zo by djmoch@mastodon.technology
2019-02-02T18:54:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@HerraBRE @technomancy Some of it is genuine too. :)I think Github could do a better job as well. Someone in your previous dialog mentioned that Github makes it nearly impossible to turn PR's off. I actually haven't found a way to do it at all. It'd be an easy feature that would send people to the README and save them the aggravation.
(DIR) Post #9fQywQwXNhCSa3Ydma by jalcine@playvicious.social
2019-02-02T18:59:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@djmoch @HerraBRE @technomancy You think this discussion is timely. I'm punting on putting things on GitHub largely because of maintenance but also because I do want to encourage the use of Git as a tool and not some "magic" that's procured by GitHub (someone I mentored thought sadly that GitHub made Git).
(DIR) Post #9fQywRA0ZbyXFprOmO by djmoch@mastodon.technology
2019-02-02T19:05:38Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@jalcine @HerraBRE @technomancy Yeah, I've moved to self-hosting recently. I have a Github account, but now use it just to contribute to other projects.
(DIR) Post #9fQzhTKoJ7FhblLCSW by jalcine@playvicious.social
2019-02-02T19:37:45Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@dgold @HerraBRE @technomancy @djmoch Oh one of my good friends got chased out by the former CEO and they tried to cover it all up - you don't have to tell me twice about their mismanagement.
(DIR) Post #9fQzjzg91X0gV6WRN2 by djmoch@mastodon.technology
2019-02-02T19:39:20Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@dgold @HerraBRE @jalcine @technomancy Agreed. It's weird to see a closed-source platform become the poster child of the opens source community.
(DIR) Post #9fTLcIRjSvNzHn5F9E by ivan@vucica.net
2019-02-03T22:57:28.154217Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@HerraBRE A point of using emails is code review. While I don't like this UI, I observed a maintainer on a project that preferred this way of collaborating and the mutt-based workflow. Mutt was the code review tool.Pull requests on GitHub are often also noisy, with commits containing "useful" auto-generated titles like "Updated README.md" and no further info. Or email address in the .patch may be wrong "george@Georges-MacBook-Pro.local".Were I running a project based around code reviews in mutt over a mailing list, I might not want to manually import PRs, or assume that I should just blast the commit onto the mail address for review.GitHub can be a nice read-only mirror; some people don't care about its so-called "community" aspects. Not advocating for or against using Git web UIs (proprietary or not), just offering a different PoV here. I wouldn't easily call it hostility. As an example: There are some projects where I have admin privileges and where an external issue tracker is in 10yr+ use, so we disabled the GitHub one; no way to do it with PRs, however. So the existing community is forced to look at a tool it has no interest in (and, because of copyright assignment policy towards a free software organisation, maybe even cannot accept). No hostility to user intended; merely result of an existing way the community operated since before Subversion transition and way before Git transition.@brainblasted
(DIR) Post #9fTLePq2x7fmn8T0jY by HerraBRE@mastodon.xyz
2019-02-02T20:28:33Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@djmoch @dgold @jalcine @technomancy Not so weird, when you consider how much of Open Source these days is businesses sponsoring the creation of open dev tools and platforms used to build closed proprietary products just like GitHub.GitHub was never as popular with folks who prefer the term Free Software...I use it grudgingly. I'm weirdly more comfortable making devs, who know enough to manage their risks, use a closed platform than I would be publishing non-free code to innocent end users.