From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rich@annexia.org>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5B1A7F8A0
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:16:51 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rich@annexia.org) identity=pra; client-ip=80.68.91.176;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rich@annexia.org";
  x-sender="rich@annexia.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  rich@annexia.org designates 80.68.91.176 as permitted sender)
  identity=mailfrom; client-ip=80.68.91.176;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rich@annexia.org";
  x-sender="rich@annexia.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible;
  x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@furbychan.cocan.org) identity=helo;
  client-ip=80.68.91.176;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rich@annexia.org";
  x-sender="postmaster@furbychan.cocan.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFANaqMVNQRFuw/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDWsAlgRsWdIImAQEEOjQLEAshExIPBSghJ4dpAc9UF4V8iHIHhDgEmEySM4MuPQ
X-IPAS-Result: AgMFANaqMVNQRFuw/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDWsAlgRsWdIImAQEEOjQLEAshExIPBSghJ4dpAc9UF4V8iHIHhDgEmEySM4MuPQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,728,1389740400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="64686086"
Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 25 Mar 2014 17:16:49 +0100
Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <rich@annexia.org>)
	id 1WSU1w-0007jS-4S; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:16:48 +0000
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:16:48 +0000
From: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rich@annexia.org>
To: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <20140325161648.GG10374@annexia.org>
References: <20140321222842.GA10374@annexia.org>
 <4C341FFE-FDF2-4EA3-B056-D4F658641E4C@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
 <20140322071508.GB10374@annexia.org>
 <CAPFanBFJ4uxZVDvevTbGFpLduG6nJmMxU=XsaKZjSzCoiF6y7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140325154958.GA20202@frosties>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140325154958.GA20202@frosties>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Trivial compiler patches

I have to say that a number of projects I've been involved with have
rejected github pulls as a method of working on patches.  I think the
main reasons are:

 - A mailing list allows you to use your regular editor when
   commenting.

 - A mailing list provides a text-based, open archive of historical
   discussions of patches.

 - github pulls always(?) turn into merge commits, instead of a
   linear history.

 - github is closed source

 - AFAIK github is not integrated into any CI system (compare, say,
   Gerrit + Jenkins -- although Gerrit + Jenkins have their share of
   problems as well).

Now this is not to say that github will not work well for the OCaml
community.

Personally I don't think that patch review is anywhere close to being
a solved problem.  It's an important area requiring much more
research!

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones
Red Hat