From: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> Cc: Stefan Beller <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eric Wong <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path] Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:03:40 -0400 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1608181430280.4924@virtualbox> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:42:34PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > BTW I take this thread as yet another proof that people are unhappy with > mail list-based review: if you have to build *that much* tooling around it > (and Peff & Junio certainly have a megaton of advanced and sophisticated > tooling around it, holy cow!) it is really incorrect to state that the > mail list-driven approach works for you. It is much closer to the truth to > say that the mail-list-plus-loads-of-custom-tools-driven approach works > for you. > > I am really not a fan of this. > > The theory "it's inclusive because everyone has access to mail" falls on > its face, badly, when even old timers have to build entire infrastructures > around it just to begin to be able to use it efficiently. > > It reminds me of an old software developer I met long ago, who claimed CVS > works for him. He had written tens of thousands of lines of shell scripts, > is what allowed "CVS" to work for him. > > Same here. Old dogs claim the mail list-approach works for them. Nope. > Doesn't. Else you would not have written all those custom scripts. I read this over, didn't agree, waited a whole day for perspective, and still just can't agree. So now I'm responding. :) There is nothing wrong with building tooling around your workflow. If we had a GitHub-based workflow, I'd build tooling around that, too. One of the things I _like_ about a mail-based workflow is how easy it is to build that tooling, and to get it to integrate with other existing tools. It's the major reason I'm resistant to moving development to GitHub. Not only would I have to throw away all of my tools, but I'm not sure I could easily build equivalent ones. Now, I am perfectly open to the idea that more of the tooling should be standardized, so people do not have to build their own. But the major problem there is that so much of what I've built is about gluing things together for the rest of _my_ tools. I've shared my techniques and scripts for using mutt several times, but they don't do somebody a lick of good if they are using gmail or thunderbird. So I don't really think I have a megaton of tooling. I just have a little bit of glue to existing tools I was using anyway. And I think that is where the disconnect is. If you are not using mutt already, then it sure seems like a big jump to change your MUA. And I'm sympathetic to that. But I don't think that means that the mailing-list approach is not working for me, as you claim in the last paragraph. -Peff PS There _are_ some open questions in our workflow that are not really mailing list specific. E.g., the fact that it is hard to see whether and if your patch was picked up by Junio, what changes were made, tracking multiple versions, etc. I _don't_ have good tooling for that, but it's something that could be made generally available, as it's unrelated to the MUA. It's also not necessarily specific to mailing list development (e.g., a push-based workflow that aggressively rebases runs into the same versioning questions).
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-08-16 16:55 Stefan Beller 2016-08-16 17:10 ` Junio C Hamano 2016-08-16 17:20 ` Jeff King 2016-08-16 17:54 ` Junio C Hamano 2016-08-16 17:22 ` Stefan Beller 2016-08-16 17:47 ` Junio C Hamano 2016-08-16 20:44 ` Eric Wong 2016-08-16 20:56 ` Eric Wong 2016-08-18 12:42 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-18 20:49 ` Eric Wong 2016-08-18 21:41 ` Junio C Hamano 2016-08-19 15:18 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-19 15:30 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-19 16:55 ` Stefan Beller 2016-08-19 22:35 ` Eric Wong 2016-08-22 13:38 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-22 19:21 ` Jeff King 2016-08-19 22:35 ` Eric Wong 2016-08-22 13:18 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-22 18:05 ` Jakub Narębski 2016-08-25 13:21 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-28 18:23 ` Jakub Narębski 2016-08-29 10:46 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-22 22:55 ` Eric Wong 2016-08-25 12:58 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-27 22:38 ` Jakub Narębski 2016-08-28 8:36 ` Working with public-inbox.org Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-28 11:41 ` Jakub Narębski 2016-08-29 5:35 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-19 15:03 ` Jeff King [this message] 2016-08-20 19:57 ` Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path] Jakub Narębski 2016-08-23 4:47 ` Arif Khokar 2016-08-24 15:34 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-24 18:49 ` Eric Wong 2016-08-24 19:12 ` Jeff King 2016-08-24 19:27 ` Eric Wong 2016-08-25 3:40 ` Arif Khokar 2016-08-25 2:41 ` Arif Khokar 2017-02-10 16:10 ` Johannes Schindelin 2017-02-13 5:52 ` Arif Khokar 2017-02-13 14:37 ` Johannes Schindelin 2017-02-14 3:56 ` Arif Khokar 2017-02-14 3:59 ` Arif Khokar 2017-02-14 7:13 ` Eric Wong 2017-02-13 19:21 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-02-14 3:55 ` Arif Khokar 2017-02-14 4:41 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-02-14 5:09 ` Arif Khokar 2017-02-14 5:14 ` Jeff King 2016-08-22 13:06 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-22 13:15 ` Duy Nguyen 2016-08-22 20:38 ` Philip Oakley 2016-08-24 13:04 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-24 19:16 ` Eric Wong 2016-08-25 13:08 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-25 3:57 ` Arif Khokar 2016-08-25 13:01 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-25 23:14 ` Arif Khokar 2016-08-26 8:08 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-27 22:26 ` Jakub Narębski 2016-08-28 8:38 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-08-28 13:45 ` Announcing Git User's Survey 2016 [was: Working with public-inbox.org] Jakub Narębski 2016-09-09 13:06 ` Johannes Schindelin 2016-09-09 18:51 ` Jakub Narębski
Reply instructions: You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: https://public-inbox.org/README * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
user/dev discussion of public-inbox itself Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://public-inbox.org/meta git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/meta git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/meta git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/meta Newsgroups are available over NNTP: nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.mail.public-inbox.meta nntp://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/inbox.comp.mail.public-inbox.meta nntp://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/inbox.comp.mail.public-inbox.meta nntp://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/inbox.comp.mail.public-inbox.meta nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.mail.public-inbox.general note: .onion URLs require Tor: https://www.torproject.org/ or Tor2web: https://www.tor2web.org/ AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox