From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152371F859 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 17:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932465AbcHIRjz (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:39:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:63947 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751919AbcHIRjw (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:39:52 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8E831EE3; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:34:13 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=+ODe7YTxvQ71YOJtaCloVRX/Foo=; b=e4i8GO WP+5ZCSfDc2mH0GRinJUjgYJLDvNny4BRXtAVCFfklZOyYV/wWa1U8lJ+O+WgWB3 GmJ+9h5goyA3EFmnZsZSQp3aou1H6N2cDIAeSn+13DALyWgYIQkthF1rFAEQONPJ ACxB9L4jgifVnGgRyOZHzp/0GzaB0XSsI0rjA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=I7PXxD4uFdDinKrD1LW7MN6F2va0sVOz Gvx3fqakM2Ysb6VLfaA2UPoPEbGvk9mTXZEmOQiCynQNFlIKWb9MW8MZdD5mi/0g VOnN2B5HoYUIQBQ1sYm1R8+lGGylWrROC1Wd8SEXjuOqbKWjnV+9ZbnoZ/Vn0mIJ Tr9hsSslu9Q= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AFC31EE2; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 026FA31EE0; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:34:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Michael Haggerty , Johannes Schindelin , Stefan Beller , Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine , Johannes Sixt , Duy Nguyen , Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= , Richard Ipsum , Eric Wong , Josh Triplett , Lars Schneider , Philip Oakley Subject: Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors References: <6c937f79-2b82-619d-51fe-adccbe09bd66@alum.mit.edu> <3055f063-c9c1-0bf5-99bd-08256c253d33@alum.mit.edu> <20160809113703.57irthzzpg6j3dmv@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 10:34:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160809113703.57irthzzpg6j3dmv@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 9 Aug 2016 07:37:03 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7CD46B6E-5E57-11E6-9B74-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes all what I wanted to say, and a lot more, so I don't have to say much ;-) > - I really like the flow of having conversations next to patches. I can > look at the index of the mailing list folder and see what people are > talking about, how big the threads are, etc, at a glance. Moving > between messages and threads involve single keystrokes. > > Similarly, having local storage is _fast_. I think GitHub is fine for > a web app. But when I'm reading a high-volume mailing list, I really > want to flip around quickly. If there's even 500ms to get to the next > message or thread, it feels clunky and slow to me. Obviously I spend > more than 500ms _reading_ most messages (though for some I see the > first paragraph and immediately jump away). It's just the latency > when I've decided I'm done with one thing and want to move to the > next. Viewing threads in a threaded mail client to help prioritizing various topics being discussed is what I value the most and I am not sure how I can be as efficient with the pull-request page. > The threading in GitHub comments and pull requests is also not great. > Each PR or issue is its own thread, but it's totally flat inside. > There are no sub-threads to organize discussion, and it's sometimes > hard to see what people are replying to. It may be a good UI that is optimized for drive-by contributors. It is just that it is not very well suited (compared to mailing list discussions) to conduct high-volume exchange of ideas and changes efficiently.