From: Richard Ipsum Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:17:22 GMT Subject: Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors Message-ID: <20160809091722.GA1983@salo> In-Reply-To: On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 06:22:21AM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > On 08/04/2016 05:58 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> [...] > >> Even requiring every contributor to register with GitHub would be too much > >> of a limitation, I would wager. > >> [...] > > > > Is it *really* so insane to consider moving collaboration on the Git > > project to GitHub or some other similar platform? > > In the very unlikely event that github is shut down, how do we get all > review comments out of it, assuming that we will use pull requests for > review? For what it's worth this is exactly why I think it would be worthwhile for git to establish a common review format, services like Github/Gitlab could then start storing reviews and comments in the git repo rather than in a separate sql database. Gerrit is already doing this with notedb, which literally gives you a git log of a review. Admittedly with Gerrit the change metadata sits in a separate git repo, still, this is much better than the current situation with Github and Gitlab in my opinion. I apologise once again if my comments here are somewhat unrelated, but I feel there is at least some overlap, since the existence of a common review format for git could potentially make Github/Gitlab a more attractive option, if Github/Gitlab chose to adopt such a format. Really I think that reviews shouldn't be stored on mailing lists, and they shouldn't be stored in sql databases, they should be stored in git.