Re: [RFC/PATCH] point pull requesters to Git Git Gadget

[Roberto Tyley <roberto.tyley@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 21:34, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 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!). I would be prepared to spend more time on it if it was
important to people - or, heavens forfend, I could be paid to do so :)
 - but I have a lot of projects (not just software ones!) and
submitGit kind of fell to the bottom of the pile. I wasn't aware of
https://gitgitgadget.github.io/ but it looks good!

>   1. submitGit seems to still have a few rough edges. E.g., it doesn't
>      munge timestamps to help threaded mail readers handled out-of-order
>      delivery.

Yup, very true.

>   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?

>   3. GGG seems to be under more active development (likely related to
>      point 2).

Definitely true!

> 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.

Roberto