[kde-community] What is a GitHub pull request exactly?

Martin Graesslin mgraesslin at kde.org
Sat Sep 19 16:37:57 UTC 2015


On Saturday, September 19, 2015 6:29:08 PM CEST Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
> On Saturday, September 19, 2015 06:22:17 PM Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > And how do we do that? Can we enforce this technically or will that be
> > weakened over the time the same way as we just turned the mirror into
> > "let's  accept pull requests"?
> 
> There is no way to enforce this technically, it has to be an unwritten
> policy. Just like many other things in KDE, we don't always have the option
> to enforce policies.

Then I'm against it to prevent the slippery slope. I think this whole thread 
proves me already right in assuming we are on a strong slippery slope.

> And I think it's a good like this: before reviewboard
> was set up, we had other review methods. It was the freedom to explore that
> later made us switch to reviewboard, first for Plasma, and then for the
> rest of the infrastructure.
> 
> I am really sorry you feel fooled by the KDE community, I don't think meant
> that. I really think we just have to iron out a misunderstanding on how we
> should use pull requests (i.e. not to replace our development model, but to
> close the communication bridge with possible contributors).

We can also close this bridge with a good bot message. I think a one good bot 
message is better than n projects having this bot message and m projects 
handle it someway (including complete utter failures if only one from the team 
does github and is on vacations).

We shouldn't be afraid of bot messages. That's not a way to turn people down. 
Heck I get so many bot messages each day. If I subscribe to a mailing list I 
also get a bot message asking me to click somewhere again. Where's the 
difference? It's not like "no, now I won't do that further step".

What's important to realize: the people have already written the patch at the 
point. Some time ago I wrote a patch for a software I hadn't contributed for 
before: figuring out how to submit the patch was more way than writing the 
patch. I did it because I wanted the patch in and didn't abandon because that 
project didn't use reviewboard which I know.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20150919/0ff10ab8/attachment.sig>


More information about the kde-community mailing list