From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, TVD_APPROVED shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A898A20248 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:35:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727003AbfCMTfy (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:35:54 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:49406 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1726938AbfCMTfy (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:35:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 20990 invoked by uid 109); 13 Mar 2019 19:35:55 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:35:55 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 15076 invoked by uid 111); 13 Mar 2019 19:34:58 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:34:58 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:34:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:34:37 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Roberto Tyley Cc: Git Mailing List , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] point pull requesters to Git Git Gadget Message-ID: <20190313193436.GA3400@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190312213246.GA6252@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08:00PM +0000, Roberto Tyley wrote: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 21:34, Jeff King wrote: > ... > > We could continue to mention _both_ tools, but it's probably better to > > pick one in order to avoid overwhelming the user with choice. After all, > > one of the purposes here is to reduce friction for first-time or > > infrequent contributors. And there are a few reasons to prefer GGG: > > That's fair enough - I haven't committed to submitGit for 2 years > (it's continued to work without incident for most of that time I > think!). Yeah, it has been working fine as far as I know. I was a little curious about how often (and about my impression that GGG was replacing it), so I did some quick mining of the list archive. Here are numbers of messages each month (from the last ~100k messages) mentioning Amazon SES (presumably submitGit) or GitGitGadget in the message-id. I omitted months with no entries for either, so there are some gaps: ses ggg year-mo --- --- ------- 7 0 2015-07 2 0 2015-08 3 0 2015-09 1 0 2015-11 2 0 2016-01 3 0 2016-02 34 0 2016-03 27 0 2016-04 2 0 2016-05 6 0 2016-06 26 0 2016-07 54 0 2016-08 3 0 2016-09 29 0 2016-10 3 0 2016-12 4 0 2017-01 7 0 2017-03 5 0 2017-04 3 0 2017-05 23 0 2017-06 9 0 2017-07 14 0 2017-09 6 0 2017-10 8 0 2017-11 8 0 2017-12 38 0 2018-01 86 0 2018-02 49 0 2018-03 9 0 2018-04 1 0 2018-05 3 4 2018-06 0 86 2018-07 13 105 2018-08 0 65 2018-09 14 149 2018-10 7 131 2018-11 1 46 2018-12 14 96 2019-01 16 149 2019-02 0 44 2019-03 That measures pure patches, so they tend to cluster as there are often several patches in a series. Poking manually at the ses hits, submitGit seems to have been often used by GSoC and Outreachy applicants and interns. I don't know if any of this really supports or refutes my earlier commit message, but I just thought it was kind of neat to see the numbers, so I thought I'd share. > > 2. Subjectively, GGG seems to be more commonly used on the list these > > days, especially by list regulars. > > That's probably true too, though my interest with submitGit was more > driven by helping early/first-time contributors than regulars. Though > I'm sure GGG works well, in an ideal world it would be interesting to > get a perspective from a cohort of those kind of users about what kind > of flow works best for them - although, as I haven't been following > development, maybe this has already been done? I think the flow is quite similar, and GGG is definitely geared at helping infrequent contributors, too. Dscho might have more thoughts on this. The biggest friction is marking a user as allowed to send. I think in submitGit you have to "OK" the submitGit app sending on your behalf. In GGG, somebody who already has been OK'd has to OK you with a comment in the PR (after which you're approved for future PRs, too). It's possible the approval could slow things down, but I think as long as users of the tool are fairly prompt about approving non-spam PRs, it wouldn't be a big deal. > > I feel a little bad sending this, because I really value the work that > > Roberto has done on submitGit. So just dropping it feels a bit > > dismissive. > > Oh, you're very kind, that's ok! Very glad submitGit could help for a > while, sounds like it was a good proof that GitHub could become part > of the contribution process. Yes, I think it definitely was. -Peff