Re: Re: GitHub “pull request” is proprietary, incomp atible with Git ‘request-pull ’
Dimitri John Ledkov writes ("Re: GitHub “pull request” is proprietary, incomp atible with Git ‘request-pull ’"):
> What you have described here is github pull requests =) they use
> refs/pull/# namespace though, so one needs to tweak fetch config to
> get them all.
Except that (a) we don't have an implementation of the server side
(b) a person who wants to submit a github pull request needs to push
buttons on the web UI too.
> The problem with all of these they are still centralised. gerrit is
> slightly better, as it stores all the review details as git notes, and
> thus one can migrate them away without any loss of information.
Are we trying to provide:
(a) Something that lets submitters use a submission workflow that they
are used to from proprietary services (or something similar to it,
anyway), while maintainers use git directly.
(b) Something that provides a different UI for maintainers ?
I understood Tollef to be asking for (a). I was offering to write a
script that would let a submitter do `git push' and the maintainer
receive the results as a git branch which can be accessed via `git
IME most users on github do not expect to get review comments and to
> A distributed code review would be better, where one pushes and/or
> uploads git bundle. (either to one's own, or to the public one for a
> given project, or generic one) and then that is exposed as e.g.
> shallow branches. Having a bridge for review comments as e.g. git
> notes would be a win.
By `distributed' you might mean either:
(i) Each project can have its own server, where its submissions are
accepted and stored, and (if applicable) any review notes are recorded
(ii) Multiple reviews notes by different people of the same submission
to the same project might be stored on different servers owned by the
I think (ii) would be insane. How would you even find all the
comments ? It would be like having a traditional list-based patch
review system where the submissions are mirrored to a variety of lists
with one list per reviewer...
so I guess you mean (i). It is such a server implementation that we
are lacking, I think.
> > (It may be that there is already some software that does this. If so
> > I'm not aware of it.)
> There are multiple, some of them are even free (gitlab, gerrit,
> gitolite with hand written hooks) but all of them have it's own
> semantics/workflows which may be sub-optimal.
gitlab and even more so gerrit are monstrous to set up. The answer
with gitolite is rather uncooked.