From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:19:43 GMT
Subject: Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors
Message-ID: <xmqqziol92cw.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160809175018.p3bwnqjwz44t2xnb@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:34:11AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> It may be a good UI that is optimized for drive-by contributors.  It
>> is just that it is not very well suited (compared to mailing list
>> discussions) to conduct high-volume exchange of ideas and changes
>> efficiently.
>
> I think that's something to ponder; can we have a workflow where
> drive-by contributors can use something that has a lower learning/setup
> curve, but long-term contributors might opt for something more powerful?
>
> I think SubmitGit is a step in that direction.

Yes, agreed 100% with that.  The author of the tool must be praised
by getting added to the Cc: line in this discussion ;-)

> It does still require
> switching to the mailing list for subsequent conversation, though. It
> would be interesting to see something like SubmitGit that puts its own
> email in the "From", and that processes email replies into PR comments,
> and then subsequent PR comments into emails (i.e., part of my "dream tool"
> from earlier). It's not clear to me whether the result would just end up
> being irritating for both sides to use (because it doesn't _quite_
> conform to the norms of each format). But it would be fun to find out.

Perhaps.  I do not know if I like that second and subsequent steps
for SubmitGit, but its first step as currently deployed I am very
happy with.