1 Return-Path: <jani@nikula.org>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E3C431FBD
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id NuWPE+DXkHAH for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
\r
17 Received: from mail-ee0-f52.google.com (mail-ee0-f52.google.com
\r
18 [74.125.83.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client
\r
19 certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id
\r
20 A6379431FBC for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:26:58 -0700
\r
22 Received: by mail-ee0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e49so4228602eek.39
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
\r
24 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
\r
25 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
\r
26 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references
\r
27 :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
\r
28 bh=//iL0q02Nb0XWMhd2r1OaCfafFBoDkgqpSAgsWE/A0s=;
\r
29 b=hBATBpP9y+Sc5FjvQK4AVo8/c0MnlDA1kEyBT8h8uRDC+I0rl/zNWL3C6incSt7Klt
\r
30 Lp/Vo9iD0XgW2Y9x/CeUTg8MbmHAzzelKsSFYaD7GdV90Tnr2zlylZ8gadNMCGnX/qpi
\r
31 JeMbwndtJ35a7lT/yuOogFebEu0F71TrXjc2VuFP0p3q49EWuBJ6my9Twzr5E5NZ2CqX
\r
32 QEzYnsEWH81FpL2uTegvY8O/b9qK9mWHzl7cdBgVsUITSs0YqRSGloKWeRMhpsWoX0WZ
\r
33 eJrCkheyfi0/L9o+GxZK5NYJ11tAUjVU+I7CL33lJmmw66Pb3+K0ZBLSA7Li38c9dNx0
\r
36 ALoCoQmBjF+EDNPlIB8wRzedj8GPnTQAxySm3z3VIwQv7RHCTzm7PgdEyHcx0UO6AbOlot11movi
\r
37 X-Received: by 10.14.2.68 with SMTP id 44mr193559eee.63.1398630414967;
\r
38 Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
\r
39 Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw2-58c36f-91.dhcp.inet.fi.
\r
41 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o5sm44334917eeg.8.2014.04.27.13.26.53
\r
42 for <multiple recipients>
\r
43 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
\r
44 Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
\r
45 From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
\r
46 To: Sam Halliday <sam.halliday@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
47 Subject: Re: [Sam Halliday] Re: github mirror
\r
48 In-Reply-To: <87mwf6txhu.fsf@Samskara.home>
\r
49 References: <87mwf6txhu.fsf@Samskara.home>
\r
50 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18~rc0+2~gbc64cdc (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
\r
51 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
52 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:26:52 +0300
\r
53 Message-ID: <87wqea7c37.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
55 Content-Type: text/plain
\r
56 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
57 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
59 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
60 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
61 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
62 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
63 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
64 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
65 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
66 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
67 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
68 X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:27:04 -0000
\r
70 On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Sam Halliday <sam.halliday@gmail.com> wrote:
\r
71 > Sorry, I replied to jani and not the list...
\r
73 ...and I in turn replied to the private message. Oops. Let's try again.
\r
75 On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Sam Halliday <sam.halliday@gmail.com> wrote:
\r
76 > In my experience the github pull review process is by far superior to
\r
77 > any other solution.
\r
79 I read and write code in Emacs. I read and write email in Emacs. I read
\r
80 and write basically anything I can in Emacs. I have near total control
\r
81 of that environment, mainly limited by my abilities.
\r
83 Any review process that forces me to review code (in other words, read
\r
84 code and write text) in an environment that I don't have control over
\r
85 will be inferior to me.
\r
87 The same is true for people using some other editor or mail client; they
\r
88 can choose and control that environment, but they have no control over
\r
91 > If I were contributing to you, it requires having to learn your
\r
92 > process, create diffs and then attach them, and then after a review it
\r
93 > means tracking down the bits of the code you're referring to and
\r
94 > manually reconciling that with my repo and sending you more
\r
95 > diffs. Using github, it's like all open source developers agree on a
\r
96 > basic set of common processes.
\r
98 Funny you should say that; it used to be that emailed patches and
\r
99 mailing list based review were the common process! I am not sure which
\r
100 one is more popular these days (or what would be the appropriate metric
\r
103 To be honest, I am slightly concerned by the popularity of
\r
104 github. Despite being a hosting site primarily for open source, it *is*
\r
105 a proprietary platform. Source code hosting is plain git, but AFAIK all
\r
106 the rest (review process, issue tracking, and so on) is pretty much at
\r
107 the whim and mercy of the company running it. They make a change, you
\r
108 adapt. If you don't want to adapt, it's not easy to switch over to
\r
109 another service provider either if you've built your process around
\r
112 So even if the features of github amazed me (they don't), I would have
\r
113 pretty strong reservations about relying on them.
\r
115 Disclaimer, I don't make the calls for this project, I only speak for
\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / blob