Re: GIT move

Hello.

GitHub pull request along with the code has something like forum thread
that may have comments attached. Initial pull request has title and
description. So it does not differ much from mailing list.
The problem is that IMHO it's not good to have multiple places for
discussion, that's why as for me mailing list is good place, but pull
request discussions should be mirrored here much like bugzilla comments
usually mirrored to -dev mailing lists.
Note that programmers that are used to github can propose patches with
pull requests. This should not be ignored. If there will be a message to
the list, community will be able to respond.
The question is if patch itself should land into mailing list archives
or pull request reference with all the comments is enough.

Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn

08.02.12 15:55, Dave Cramer написав(ла):
> Hi
>
> How does a github pull request establish "evidence of intent" ? Please
> keep in mind this question is out of ignorance as I am not that
> familiar with github.
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
> http://www.credativ.ca
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Vitalii Tymchyshyn<tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> As for me, github pull request could be enough. No one needs to chase down
>> anything and at the same time everything can be easily tracked/reused with
>> all author information. It is also can be treated as "evidence of intent to
>> license the code". The only minus is lack of list archiving.
>> Also note that since repository is available in github, pull requests are
>> expected. So, for me best thing would be to send notifications from github
>> to this list (or some new list) regarding pull requests. It seems this can
>> be configured in github's notification center.
>>
>> Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn
>>
>> 08.02.12 14:27, Dave Cramer написав(ла):
>>> I for one would like to keep the policy that we require a context
>>> patch to be sent to the list.
>>> Having to chase down everyone's git repo seems like more work rather than
>>> less
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Maciek Sakrejda<msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> As far as I
>>>>>> can tell, the reason the main project requires patches was to change
>>>>>> the *process* as little as possible in the course of changing the VCS
>>>>>> plumbing.
>>>>> That's *a* reason, but not the only one. Other large considerations are
>>>>> that we consider that the act of submitting the patch to the mailing
>>>>> list is evidence of intent to license the code under the Postgres
>>>>> license, and further that this evidence is archived in the PG list
>>>>> archives.
>>>> That's an excellent point--thanks for the clarification.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc