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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, 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 66F431FD99 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:17:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752110AbcHIJRq (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 05:17:46 -0400 Received: from ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk ([185.25.241.215]:36082 "EHLO ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751454AbcHIJRp (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 05:17:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11727462F96; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:17:43 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk Received: from ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nt7UnLkf16dS; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:17:41 +0100 (BST) Received: from salo (82-70-136-246.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.70.136.246]) by ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C92BF4608B3; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:17:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:17:22 +0100 From: Richard Ipsum To: Duy Nguyen Cc: Michael Haggerty , Johannes Schindelin , Stefan Beller , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine , Jeff King , Johannes Sixt , Jakub =?utf-8?B?TmFyxJlic2tp?= , 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 Message-ID: <20160809091722.GA1983@salo> References: <6c937f79-2b82-619d-51fe-adccbe09bd66@alum.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 06:22:21AM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > On 08/04/2016 05:58 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> [...] > >> Even requiring every contributor to register with GitHub would be too much > >> of a limitation, I would wager. > >> [...] > > > > Is it *really* so insane to consider moving collaboration on the Git > > project to GitHub or some other similar platform? > > In the very unlikely event that github is shut down, how do we get all > review comments out of it, assuming that we will use pull requests for > review? For what it's worth this is exactly why I think it would be worthwhile for git to establish a common review format, services like Github/Gitlab could then start storing reviews and comments in the git repo rather than in a separate sql database. Gerrit is already doing this with notedb, which literally gives you a git log of a review. Admittedly with Gerrit the change metadata sits in a separate git repo, still, this is much better than the current situation with Github and Gitlab in my opinion. I apologise once again if my comments here are somewhat unrelated, but I feel there is at least some overlap, since the existence of a common review format for git could potentially make Github/Gitlab a more attractive option, if Github/Gitlab chose to adopt such a format. Really I think that reviews shouldn't be stored on mailing lists, and they shouldn't be stored in sql databases, they should be stored in git.