On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:16:54 +0800 Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 13:45 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Well, the git-send-email patchbomb workflow is pretty ugly too in > > many respects. I can see why some people don't much like it. [1] > > I began with git send-email, but the email client of the person in > question did not allow getting emails out in a form suitable for git > am so then I sent one mail with git format-patch output attached, > that was rejected in favour of github pull requests. > > > Did you offer those Debian folks a git url they could fetch from ? > > I hadn't yet, that is what I was going to try next. Based on comments > from the last discussion, I expect anything other than a github pull > request will be rejected. > > > If a Debian team insisted that the only way they would consider my > > contribution is if I provided it via github, I would probably ask > > the DPL or someone to help mediate. > > I don't think that would be appropriate and I don't want to antagonise > anyone more than I already did. It might be useful if there were > Debian folks who are github users who were willing to forward > branches, attached patches or patchbombs to github pull requests > though. Much as I may be in favour of the github UI for particular reasons, I can't see why this is a defensible position for a team within Debian - yet I'm also not sure that I could be that intermediary due to a likely lack of time. There really isn't a good reason to not have multiple remotes and pull from whichever the contributor is best able to use. It makes no sense for a team to actively block the distributed side of git. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpIgjosCtQ9k.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature