Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
> My feeling is: this is not how we want to accept patches. This
> approach is completely disconnected from our community. How do we talk
> to the person providing the change? How do we ask for modifications?
> How to interact?
>
> But even larger: our goal is to get people *involved* in our
> community. There isn't any obvious way to get 'techtonik' brought into
> our community unless they come to the dev@ list.
>
> That said... we *do* accept patches via the issue tracker on
> subversion.tigris.org. Are we ready to accept patches through a
> separate channel? Personally, I'm not ready to say "hey, any channel
> on the planet is fine. please... feel free! devise new channels! we
> are willing to review 100 channels for incoming patches!"
>
> I like GitHub. It is a very, very well-done site. But I'm not ready to
> say that it is a viable mechanism for people to deliver patches. My
> preference is for those to arrive here on dev@, where we can interact
> with the person. Not as some drive-by, fait accompli.
>
> Thoughts?
I don't like it. The email doesn't contain the patch or the log
message. The email has the address of the patch author in the body and
not in the headers. Patches should be visible and discussed on dev.
Since you mention it: I think submitting patches as "attachments" through
subversion.tigris.org is broken as well. Getting an email telling me a
patch has been added to an issue but not sending me the patch itself is
unhelpful.
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com
Received on 2012-05-24 12:33:20 CEST